I guess this boo-hooing for those poor unfortunate souls in the top 3% of income earners pulling down $300K a year is what makes you still a Republican I guess. People are getting booted from their homes, have no insurance, are choosing between food and rent, but we're supposed to feel bad because that rich guy only has $250K left over after he sends his kids to $40K a year private school.

The world's smallest fiddle is playing a sweet, sweet melody.

More on topic, here's a gem from Michael Steele:

"You and I know that in the history of mankind and womankind, government -- federal, state or local -- has never created one job."

Huh?

UPDATE:

STEELE: And first off the government doesn’t create jobs. Let’s get this notion out of our heads that the government creates jobs. Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job. Small business owners do, small enterprises do. Not the government. When the government contract runs out, that job goes away. That’s what we’re talking about here and those 2 to 4 million jobs that are projected? Won’t happen, trust me.

Wow. The stupid. It hurts.

250k is not rich

They are in the wealthiest top 5% of wage earners. They make nearly 6 times the US median income. Beyond that, whether it's rich or not is semantics.

But the bottom line for me is that they are much better off and much less in need of breaks than the other 95%, not the other way around.

$250,000 may not be rich, but no one at that level worries about paying the mortgage or buying food.

Simply not true.

Ridiculous. OK, so maybe they can't afford their lexuses and their mansion but no one making that much money is hurting.

So when poor and middle class people lose their house because of upside down mortgages, then fuck them for being irresponsible. But when someone making $200-300K blows their money on $40K private school, they're "hurting" and need government help?

Republicans. Yeesh.

Not at all what I said. Let me try an explain better:


Many people in this country are financially irresponsible: poor, middle-class, wealthy, the whole lot. My contention was based on the need to stabalize this countries financial system as quickly as possible. In order to do that, I believe you should focus on those who still have houses, be them poor, middle-class, wealthy, makes no difference.

But make no mistake, there are MANY people making $250k a year that are hurting just as bad, or even worse, than a person making $50k a year. Now that could be because they spent lavishly and acted like an idiot, or it could be that certain things just snowballed, leaving them with more bills and spiraling interest rates they simply couldn't handle. Call it lack of forsight, but people tend to live to the extent of their means, regardless of income, and if issues arrise, it's always easy to get into trouble you didn't forsee.

Regardless, my point was that if you want to stabalize housing, you need to focus not on the people who are already out of luck and in turn out of a home, but instead on those who are barely hanging on. If you continue to let existing homes slip into forclosure, there is no chance of stabilization, so you have to ensure that the market begins to move in a positive direction.

I agree. But this is the direct opposite of what you said earlier about not bailing out people who couldn't afford to stay in their houses.

You said that the low income families don't need any tax cut and that it's the ones making $250K a year who need the help because they have to pay 40K a year to send their kids to private school and they are hurting "the most."

I agree with Groucho that this is patently absurd. The only thing "hurting" about those in the top 5% income bracket is their sense of entitlement to their current lifestyle. Instead of more and more tax breaks and bail-outs for the wealthiest people in America, why not encourage them to get a smaller house and enroll their kids in public schools?

I think you mis-read what I said. I assume you're talking about my comments in the stimulus thread, mainly these paragraphs:



I never said low income families, and that wasn't what I meant to imply. I was simply speaking to the fact that you need to stop focusing on the people who are already out of luck, and do what you can to help those who are barely holding on / about to fall into forclosure. That's the best way to stabalize the market.

Now I did say that my tax-braket has no need for a tax cut, and we don't. I literally pay next to nothing in taxes, especially compared to higher brackets. I stand by the fact that it's those in the 75k to 300k bracket that are most in need of a cut.

You can talk about the lack of forsight of someone making 250k and still living paycheck to paycheck till your blue in the face, but the fact is that its extremely common place. You can choose to reject that, or simply choose to say they don't deserve help based on their stupidity, but I simply don't believe that. And while I do agree that many Americans, including many in that 75k to 300k bracket, need to seriously adjust their financial responsibility, I don't believe that means we just leave them out to dry simply because 'they should have known better.' You can say that someone making 40k a year should have known better than to spend over their head, and you can say the same for someone making 250k, it all applies, the key is to help those who can still keep their house, regardless of income level. Doing so helps stabalize the economy, and hopefully gives them a chance to sell the house and move into an era of better financial stability, albeit at a lower spending level.

Also, I was referring to 40-50k a year for college tuition, not private high-school tuition.

I think you have to do both. The people who have already lost their homes need as much help, if not more, than those who are barely hanging on. I'm not sure what's to be gained by abandoning them, or why we need to be more sympathetic to those who are scraping by vs those who are really in dire straits.

The hard part of course is that it's extremely difficult and time consuming to separate those who were responsible but unfortunate with those who simply lived beyond their means. I'm not sure how you do that or if it's practical to even bother trying.

Well, we have programs set up for those who are in dire straits: Welfare, Unemployment, etc. But we're not a socialist society, and if someone lost their home because they couldn't afford it, lost their job because of layoffs or poor performance, there is honestly only so much the government can do for them. What exactly would you like to do, I'm not against it, I just don't see a realistic way to achieve anything of value.

The goal with this bill is to stimulate the economy. You do that by salvaging those who can still be salvaged, and spurning growth. The simple truth of the matter is you don't stimulate the economy by rescuing people who have lost their homes, rather, by creating affordable ways for people to get into homes, homes they can afford. This entire problem started because people making 250k were allowed homes they couldn't afford, and people making 40k were allowed homes they couldn't afford. Everyone was buying upwards, buying a life they shouldn't really have had, and now they are paying for it. It's not so much rich or poor, everyone's involved here, it's just about afford-ability no matter what bracket you are in coupled with financial responsibility. Live within your means.

As for the separation you speak of, I'm of the mind that it's simply impossible to know without looking on a case by case basis, which is an impossibility.

As to why we need to focus on those that still have houses, you do it mainly because you have to stop the bleeding in the housing market. Foreclosures are destroying the market and taking the financial system down with it, they lower property values for existing houses, restrict lending, lose money for everyone involved, and the list goes on.

Okay, Michael Steele is a lot stupider than I gave him credit for. Just...wow.



Even with this dumbass distinction, Steele's assertion that no government in the history of the world has ever created a job still doesn't make sense.

And he should ask those unemployed if they'd reject a two year government contract to build a bridge because it's not really a "job" according to GOP leader Michael Steele.

Not only is Steele an idiot, he's apparently a corrupt one too. There is an ongoing federal investigation where he apparently sent money to his sister's business during his campaign even though his sister's business had ended a year earlier...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04202.html

In all honestly, the corruption is less surprising to me than just how genuinely stupid the guy is.

I mean: "Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."

That's just insane beyond comprehension. I know that Republicans live in a reality of their own creation, but this is ridiculous.

I can't wait for him to explain that to postal workers, police officers, teachers, district attorneys, firefighters, military personnel, department of transportation officials, public hospital workers, toll booth attendants, public transportation employees, street cleaners, NASA employees...

Or how about the Lt. Governor of fucking Maryland?! A JOB that Steele himself had for four years (nevermind the fact that he campaigned on his administration's record of CREATING JOBS!).

I guess the fact that he never considered that a real job explains a whole helluva lot.

Although in fairness to Steele, he is the PERFECT leader for today's Republican party.

Oops, late to the ball. There's no such thing as 250K left-over 'salary'. Anyone who has that much as a base annual salary (not many) has an investment portfolio of some kind. As long as we are sitting around here talking about 'middle class salaries' we're missing the point.