As with so many things, we may, in the end, just have to agree to disagree.

However, some who would characterize themselves as "fiscally conservative" may actually believe in the concept of our balancing the budget through tax increases--or, at the very least, through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts (with the emphasis usually being on the former).

As I indicated in an earlier post, however, this observation by Mr. Will would apply with much greater force if left-of-center thinkers were substituted for "Democrats"; with the two groups often (though not quite always) overlapping...

Sadly, however, most politicians nowadays look upon politics as a career per se, rather than as a temporary interruption of one's career; and they therefore care very little about "we, the people," except to give us a perfunctory nod while asking for our votes...

I may not have elucidated as well as I should have.

What I meant to say is this:

In the metaphor, "pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps," the term, "bootstraps," is a metaphor for effort. To pull oneself up "by one's own bootstraps," therefore, is to advance because of one's own effort.

To declare that some people simply do not have bootstraps, therefore, is to think concretely, and thereby change the metaphor. It is, in essence, to declare that some people have no ability to make any personal effort.

I'd be one of those who think the economy must keep taxes and institute service cuts.
I don't see any other way out of the mess short of a miracle.

And as I read this I can't help but say to myself, "No ****, Sherlock! Next subject...?"



No I know the dif between mental bootstraps and actual boots.
Question is do you know there are such things as "mental bootstraps" and that it is possible to run short on them?

__________________

I remain unalterably opposed to our increasing any sort of taxes, on any group whatsoever.

Not long ago, I learned that California's budget shortfall is 15 times as great as the budget shortfall in Greece, which has led to recent austerity measures by the government there; which, in turn, has led to recent riots...

Yet California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger--no doctrinaire conservative, he--has declared firmly that he will not, under any circumstances, raise Californians' taxes in any manner. And he must balance the budget, in accordance with the state constitution. Which leaves only one possibility: massive cuts in state services.

I would favor the same, with regard to the federal government. A low-service/low-tax society is far preferable, from my point of view, to a high-service/high-tax society.

To reiterate, the "bootstraps" that you refer to here as "mental bootstraps" (bold added) actually is a synonym for effort.

To proclaim, therefore, that is is possible to "run short" on these "mental bootstraps" is tantamount to declaring that it is possible to run short on effort.

And I suppose it is.

But I really do not see a lack of effort as being (somehow) defensible, or as providing the basis for some moral claim upon the larger society.

Some have said Greece's troubles are from not investing enough in the economy. I won't look it up now as I am too tired, but do we know if Greece 's problems are in any way similar to California's?
I think Arnold is right not to raise taxes, For one thing who will pay them?
I don't think tax "cuts" are the answer either.
No it's not like "effort". It's more like -if you've ever read anything about the human psyche needing a certain amount of "warm fuzzies" in the course of a lifetime as opposed to the amount of "cold pricklies".
I saw this in a vocational school where many students were adults returning to college for training.
There were people who made it out or didn't for a variety of reasons, but there were one or two you could point to who had the drive, the incentive, the brain power, but events in their life had taken too much of a toll for them to achieve the last hurdles.
During the Great Depression, I know there were men who just walked away from a family for no other reason than they didn't want to watch them starve or live in the streets. It was too much. You can blame these men all you want for not "taking responsibility", but I suspect many of them had just hoped till hope was not there and tried till trying made them a sad caricature. Bow the head. Take the hand out. Beg. Take a paycheck you knew was short. Do things you never thought you'd do and then do them again.
***
Now I am not certain whether we should extend unemployment benefits or not.
Here's a thought. Why not assess the damage wrought on the American economy and do like we did with BP? Make the responsible parties pony up? Maybe AIG or former Lehman bros execs could save a few mortgages and feed a few hungry people?
How do you like that idea?

__________________

Average income went down because there were more low income jobs created. That number you're using isn't the result of people making less, it;s the result of an increase in the number of lower paying jobs. That MORE jobs. Remember that incredibly low unemployment rate, that's because there were more jobs. Yes, a lot of those jobs were lower paying jobs, but that only menas that there were people entering the job market and pulling low pay. All those low paying jobs drove the average down and that DOES NOT mena that people were making less, it means that the average was lower. Your playing games with numbers. Under Clinton, the benefits of 12 years of empowering free enterprise were being felt and he had pretty conservative Congress to rein him in and prevent him pushing massive tax increases. If you want to give credit for the booming economy of the '90's, you should be shaking Newt Gingrich, GW Bush and Ronald Reagan's hand, not Bill Clinton's.

__________________
Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

Leftists and very small children don't seem to be able to understand that the Government isn't there to "fix" the economy, anymore than a tick is there to fix your dog.~Oftencold

No. It is absolute truth.
And your response to try and take your PERSONAL history to try to refute the OVERALL STATISTICAL REALITY is what is "absolute crap".

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...inc/f07AR.html
Under Clinton (1992-2000) average ("mean") household income rose $15164.
Under Bush (2000-2007) average ("mean") household income fell $348.
This is adjusted for inflation under "2007 dollars"

To try and refute this by talking about your personal income history?


Obviously, your claim is belied by the facts.
When I referred to "average Joe", I was talking about the ACTUAL average. Something you can STATISTICALLY verify.


The number of folks you know compared to the number of people included in the statistics above?
Meh!


This is the problem with replying to some conservatives with ACTUAL facts.
They don't need them...

All they have to do is spin their story a little more elaborately, and ultimately claim their desired conclusion anyways. MAKE UP a new explanation, which they give absolutely no substantiation for.


I point out that the average Joe lost money, DOCUMENTED by government statistics?
The response is just to claim "wasn't true for me"
I point out the TRUE source of the revenue rise which had NOTHING to do with income tax cuts?
Out trots a revised story on the "trickle down revenue" fairy story, trying to pretend (with no substantiation) that it must be because of Bush...

Why don't you prove your allegations instead of asking questions and demanding I believe your trickle down faith?
Cause quite frankly, with replies like you just showed, there is no point in trying to give you more facts you're going to ignore...


Again, I tire of people just making new stuff up that they find convenient to believe.
NO documentation of their claims.

Prove your claim.


Keep on trying to move that bar....
The point is that taxes DID rise under Clinton. SIGNIFICANTLY so.

By the Republican philosophy, that should mean both the rich, and the trickle down average Joe, should have been harmed by his move.
As previously shown, NOT TRUE.

To try and give Congress credit for not allowing him "massive" tax increases is patently pointless.
The point is taxes under Clinton DID RISE.
And the country STILL did well.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

By the fact that the word "many" is meaningless.
You can whine that you think it is "dismissive" all you want.
I'll simply reply that your response is "dismissive" as well...



And thus, when shown the reality of where the REAL "many" of the Bush tax cuts, pjohns admits and essentially says "meh!"


Claiming they are "left-leaning" (while some would obviously dispute that unsubstantiated claim) is hardly proof that their claims are wrong.

I could just as easily declare that your side is "right-leaning".
Does that mean we get to ignore their claims on trickle down?

Dismissing somebody's statements just cause you see they are not politically neutral is a pathetically weak counter.


Your "observation" is akin to a schizophrenic explaining to people what he hears...
Ignoring what the people you talk to ACTUALLY BELIEVE, and instead making categorical stereo-types about another people's "seem to believe" is another pathetically weak form of discussion.

I could just as legitimately claim that it is my observation that I "Democrats seem to believe" nothing of the sort.
There! My claim cancels out yours.
Great progress was made by all!
< end sarcasm >

Have you ever heard of this thing called "facts"?

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Well, I can't give you an exact number. But I would imagine that many millions have seen their marginal rate reduced from 15 percent to 10 percent, under the Bush tax cuts.

I know we have...

No.

Not at all.

What I have "admit[ted]" is the obvious, viz.: In sheer dollar amounts, more money would have surely returned to the highest earners under the Bush tax cuts.

But probably far more individuals who were formerly in the 15 percent tax bracket would benefit than would individuals who were in the top tax bracket (those hated "rich" Americans!).

Perhaps not.

But it does make them highly suspect, in my view.

This reads like little more than a rant...

...followed by the (predictable) rudeness...

You mean I took some numbers and applied what I believe to be the truth, regardless of the facts?? Simple solution.... Since you're the one making the claim, show me the raw data behind your numbers. I want to see the difference between the income of those who were employed at the start of teh Bush admin. compared to thier income at the end. Let's take out the variable of the new lower paying jobs that were created in that time span. Let's take out the impact of the dotCom bubble bursting and all those over-paid positions going away. You want to take ONE piece of data and interpret the way you want to have it interpretted, regardless of the incredibly critical details behind it. Then, when I use the EXACT SAME tactic, you whine about it. I've the exact same amount of validity to my assertions that you do. Neither of us have the details of the raw data and both of us can extract completely different conclusions from the same piece of data. I say that lowering average income represents more lower paying jobs (we definitely had more jobs created and new jobs are generally lower-paying), you think that everyone in America made less money (with no reasoning to back up your assertion).

Just in case you don't understand basic math, let me show you the two scenarios we're looking at:

Starting scenario: 5 people who make between $100 and $200 a day
1 - $100
2 - $125
3 - $200
4 - $100
5 - $175

Average -$140

Your assertion:
1 - $100
2 - $115
3 - $175
4 - $100
5 - $150
Average - $128

My assertion
1 - $100
2 - $125
3 - $200
4 - $100
5 - $175
6 - $100
7 - $100
Average - $128

Did the average go down in both assertions?? YES IT DID!!!

__________________
Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

Leftists and very small children don't seem to be able to understand that the Government isn't there to "fix" the economy, anymore than a tick is there to fix your dog.~Oftencold

Really??? The Clinton admin. ended in a recession. When Pres. Bush took office and cut taxes, the recession ended and the economy grew. Odd how that worked out. When Pres. Reagan took office, we were in a reccession. Taxes were cut and the economy grew. It happened again??? Who'd a thunk it???? Now the Clinton recession most likely had far more to do with the dotCom bubble than the tax increases, but the fact remains that private enterprise is the ONLY vehicle by which our economy grows. The public sector DOES NOT grow the economy, it simply moves money around and generally cause it to actually shrink the economy, since tehy have no reward motivation for success, they tend to throw money at problems instead of solving them or cutting them off as private enterprise would be forced to do. the more money the private sector has to work with, the stronger the economy. Any time you take money out of the private sector with no compensating benefit, you weaken the economy.

__________________
Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

Leftists and very small children don't seem to be able to understand that the Government isn't there to "fix" the economy, anymore than a tick is there to fix your dog.~Oftencold