Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, November, 28, 2012
Mornin', folks!
Got my outgoing email situation straightened out!
Still need to get my address book back - or else create a new one from scratch. (Funny thing... I just tried to create a "new" contact and somehow got hung up over phone numbers... I have no idea what that was about... actually had to manually shut down because I couldn't get out of the program...)
Oh, well... baby steps...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/poverty_like_we_ve_never_seen_it_1Tm0h9YpmVsEc2gHYm6DaN
The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.
Even with full medical coverage.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.
This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be “poor” in the United States?
To the average American, the word “poverty” means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children.
The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.
But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2% of the official poor are homeless. According to the government’s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that’s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
In America, about 80% of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureau’s old definition of poverty.
The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500.
In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.
(*BANGING MY HEAD ON THE DESK*)
Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an “escalator” that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
* NOTHING "REMARKABLE" ABOUT ANY OF THIS FOLKS. THIS IS THE OBAMA MODEL... THE OBAMA PLAN. I'VE BEEN BLOGGING ABOUT IT AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN BLOGGING!
While the old poverty measure counted absolute purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy), the new measure counts comparative purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people.)
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
This means it will be difficult to reduce poverty in America no matter how much the living conditions of the poor actually improve. (Imagine a sprinter in a race where the finish line is moved back four feet every time the runner takes a step.) Look at it this way: If the real income of every single American were to double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty because the poverty-income thresholds also would double. Under this new definition, we can reduce poverty only if the incomes of the “poor” rise much faster than those of everyone else.
The goal of fighting poverty is no longer about meeting physical needs; instead it has been covertly shifted to equalizing incomes, or “spreading the wealth.”
Divorced from actual living conditions, the new government report on “poverty” is merely an advertising tool for expanding the welfare state.
* YEP...
(*PURSED LIPS*)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49992024
President Barack Obama said Wednesday he hoped to reach a deal on the "Fiscal Cliff" before Christmas but insisted that Congress move now to prevent a middle-class tax increase in January. "Let's approach this with the middle class in mind," he said.
* BUT... BUT... BUT... THE DEFICITS... THE DEBT... THE CONCEPT OF EVERYONE PAYING "THEIR FAIR SHARE..."
(*SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Stocks rose in response to his comments.
* OF COURSE THEY DID!
(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE DESK*)
* FOLKS... LET'S GO OVER THE FISCAL CLIFF. IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO WAKE UP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334216/all-about-taxes-michael-tanner
How many times have we heard that the only thing standing in the way of a grand bargain to reduce our growing national debt is Republican intransigence on taxes? If Republicans would only agree to dump Grover Norquist, Democrats will agree to cut spending and reform entitlements.
(Then, we can all join hands and sing Kumbaya as we usher in a new era of compromise and fiscal responsibility.)
Except that now that Republicans have agreed to raise taxes, er, revenue, as part of an agreement to avoid the looming fiscal cliff, liberals appear to have decided that there really isn’t a need to cut spending after all.
“Suddenly the clear and present danger to the American economy isn’t that we’ll fail to reduce the deficit enough; it is, instead, that we’ll reduce the deficit too much,” warns Paul Krugman.
* FOLKS... YA CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP...
All this worry about debt and deficits is “an entirely contrived crisis,” writes Robert Kuttner in the Huffington Post.
(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE DESK*)
After all, as the New York Times explains, “deficits are actually a good thing when the economy is deeply depressed, so deficit reduction should wait until the economy is stronger.”
* BUT... BUT... BUT... WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS AND WE'RE... er... "HERE"... IN THE SITUATION WE'RE IN!
“So,” sums up Robert Reich, “can we please stop obsessing about future budget deficits? They’re distracting our attention from what we should be obsessing about — jobs and growth.”
* BUT... BUT... BUT... WASN'T THAT WHAT THE PAST FIVE YEARS WORTH OF DEMPUBLICAN/REPUBLICRAT ECONOMIC POLICIES WERE ALL ABOUT...???
Congressional Democrats already appear to have successfully taken Social Security reform off the table.
* THAT'S WHAT EVERYTHING I'M READING AND HEARING INDICATES...
(*SIGH*)
This, despite the fact that Social Security faces $22 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
* FOLKS... FUCK THE LIABILITIES! SOCIAL SECURITY HAS BEEN UPSIDE DOWN - IN DEFICIT - FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW! THE "CRISIS" HAS ALREADY HIT... BUT EXCEPT FOR HERE AT USUALLY RIGHT AND VIA MY "GO TO" SOURCES YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THIS. (WHICH IS OF COURSE DELIBERATE...)
Democrats may be willing to "trim" Medicare, but both Harry Reid and Dick Durbin are opposed to structural changes, such as raising the eligibility age.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Of course, anything resembling Paul Ryan’s premium-support plan is beyond even discussing.
(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)
Democrats are more inclined to rely on the type of "reforms" contained in the Affordable Care Act.
* IN OTHER WORDS... DOUBLING DOWN ON DYSFUNCTION AND CONTINUOUSLY MAKING THE SITUATION WORSE.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Yet the administration’s own actuaries project that, even if all of the ACA’s reforms work exactly as hoped, Medicare will remain $42 trillion in the red. (And that’s the best-case scenario.)
* OOPS...
Remember that hypothetical deal of $1 in tax increases to $10 in spending cuts?
Republicans are still being asked about it and criticized for rejecting it. But balancing the budget under that formula would require $9 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years. When was the last time the president or a Democratic congressman was asked whether or not they would agree to such a deal?
* OR... WE COULD SIMPLY BALANCE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET BY ONLY SPENDING WHAT THE GOVERNMENT TAKES IN VIA TAXES AND FEES.
(*SHRUG*)
* FOLKS... DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND... EVERY TIME YOU BUY THIS "OVER TEN YEARS" PREMISE YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A DUPE.
For that matter, it’s worth noting that more than half of Democratic congressmen and eleven senators have signed a pledge to oppose any changes to Social Security or Medicare.
* "...ANY CHANGES..." SO... DOES THAT SOUND "REASONABLE" TO YOU...? OH, WELL... IT DOESN'T MATTER... THE DEMS WON THE ELECTION. WE'RE FUCKED.
If pledges are the root of all evil, couldn’t we pause for just a moment in our attempts to run Grover Norquist out of town to work up the tiniest bit of outrage about this one?
* NO. WHILE I APPRECIATE THE SARCASM BEHIND THE LINE, THE SAD TRUTH IS THAT REALITY IS NOTHING TO BE SARCASTIC ABOUT. THERE IS NO "EQUAL OUTRAGE" AND THERE NEVER WILL BE. AGAIN, FOLKS... OBAMA WAS RE-ELECTED. THAT'S ALL YOU'VE GOTTA KNOW.
(*SHRUG*)
In fact, many Democrats actually want to spend more, at least in the short term.
(*NOD*)
The president’s most recent budget calls for $2.6 trillion in increased spending between now and 2022.
* AGAIN... EVEN "OUR" GUYS - GUYS LIKE THE AUTHOR OF THIS PIECE - GET SUCKERED IN TO THIS "OVER TEN YEARS" BULLSHIT.
* FOLKS... THELMA AND LOUISE ARE DRIVING THE CAR AND THAT'S THAT.
That’s $1 trillion more than the $1.6 trillion that the president has called for in new taxes.
(*TEARFUL LAUGHTER*)
Therefore, the tax hikes would not be used to reduce the deficit, but to finance new spending.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
And, according to news reports, the president has already floated the idea of still more stimulus spending as part of the fiscal-cliff talks.
(*NOD*)
That’s not a “balanced approach.” That’s simply old-fashioned tax-and-spend politics.
(*NOD*)
The time may someday come to parse the exact meaning of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. But for now, Republicans are simply negotiating with themselves and with the news media. Democrats haven’t even come to the table.
* YEP... PRETTY MUCH.
Post a Comment