During the campaign, many people expressed outrage over Mitt Romney’s statement concerning the fact that almost fifty percent of the public do not pay pay income taxes. I well understood the anger, but I am a bit surprised that a video by the California Federation of Teachers has not produced the same outrage over its unfairness and frankly crudeness. The video shows a wealthy person urinating on the poor as part of a “Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairy Tale.” I readily admit that I am in the minority on our blog in opposing some of the tax increase proposals in this country and abroad as economically unwise. However, the demonization of the wealthy in this country has gone a bit far when a video of this kind is released by a major organization.
Real Clear Politics and a few sites ran a story on the urination scene, but the video below has the sound but not the image of actual urination. It is not clear if someone added the yellow image to the video or the producers removed the image. When you now hit on various sites that showed what they said was the image of the urination, a sign pops up that this is now a “private video.” I am unsure of what that means since the union reportedly put the video out to the public. However, there is no mention of the controversy that I could find on the union site.
The eight-minute video was written and directed by California Federation of Teachers’ communications director Fred Glass with voice over by Ed Asner. The mythical land describes rich evading taxes by investing in “Wall Street” — not quite mythical. “Don’t worry. This is good for you, too. Because it will trickle down from us to you.” You can still hear the sound of the rich man “trickling down” on the poor.
Viewers are urged to email their elected representatives to tell them to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to fund public services.
I happen to agree with the premise of raising revenues (though I oppose some of the tax proposals in this country and abroad). I am a long and vocal supporter for increasing funding for schools and teachers. However, I view this video as unfair and hyperbolic even without the yellow stream. The wealthy do pay considerable taxes and many support public programs and public causes. They also do pay the vast majority of taxes. Should they pay more in this economy. Yes, but it is grossly unfair to engage in this type of vilification. The video for example states that after the housing market crash the government printed money for “rich people” but they didn’t give any to “ordinary people whose houses and jobs were broken by the crash.” The video also states that after the collapse that rich people “love their money more than anything in the world.” That is simply outrageous. What would be the reaction to a business group releasing a video stating poor people do not care for other people and do not want to work? There would be justified anger and outrage, but the reaction to this video seems to be muted from the left. It is not enough to simply shrug and again blame the other side triggering such responses. Whatever the excesses of the other side of this debate, it does not relieve adults of being the obligations of accuracy and decency. As an educator myself, I am embarrassed to see any teacher’s organization engage in such attacks.
I am interested in whether the union did include the even more offensive image and removed it or whether it is claiming that conservative groups hacked their video. If it is the former, I do not believe that they have served the interests of teachers who generally strive to engage in reasoned and respectful debate. If it is the latter, I would love to know who added the yellow image and left the appearance that it was in the original video. The union itself has thus far said little on the controversy. [UPDATE: the original video is posted here and shows the yellow image. It would appear that the union has altered its own video though I cannot find any statement from it on this controversy].
The current video is shown below.
“Daddy’s dough is not destiny though surely it helps.”
Mespo,
You can dispute the data I presented all you want, but the proof is in the numbers.
Even the examples you gave, excluding Steve Jobs were people coming from decidedly middle-class families, which is exactly the point made by the studies I presented.
“Come on, Mike. Why so gloomy? You can rejoice in the Horatio Alger story that America still is — if you can let yourself believe that it still is.”
Are you not aware that in each and every one of Horatio Alger’s novels the “plucky” hero works hard, but only achieves success through marrying the Rich Man’s daughter, or saving the rich mans life by pushing him away from danger. The moral really is keep working hard at your miserable and low-paying job and maybe………just maybe, you’ll run across a rich man and his daughter to take you away from your poverty. Now that’s an American Dream we can all believe in! I’m still waiting for my lucky break. Maybe I’ll win Powerball. 🙂
MikeS, Please look at what occurred here in this thread. mespo made a statement using his being the son of a teacher to make some judgeemnts about schools. That “experience” was not challenged by anyone here. I actually believe it is valid. The experiences of my parents and my wife have given me good perspectives on other careers. However, I think mespo and most people would agree, it’s not as good as actually having taught. Plus, I have not even included my decades of coaching baseball. Coaching in many respects is the purest form of teaching. I’ve coached kids from little league to Legion. From inner city to suburb to small town. I wasn’t one of those guys who just coached his kids. ~70% of the teams I coached were w/o my kids. I loved it and it is a community service which I believe strongly is important. My actual experience was at best challenged, at worst scoffed at. That’s a double standard, pure and simple. I’m not playing victim, I’m just calling bullsh!t.
Regarding the UIC study. You say it’s flawed. Well show me the flaws. Show me a better study that refutes it’s findings. Absent both of those, you’re left w/ your opinion, I have a study that backs up what I said and what you said was bullsh!t even before I brought in the study. Nobody but you challenged the study and I believe because you had the most invested. You accused me of being a “Republican ” in libertarian clothes by saying “Dem” cities are corrupt. Well, they are..deal w/ it. And, I’ll say again, absolute power corrupts absolutely and if Repubs had dominant regimes, it would be no different.
I’m proud of my being blue collar. My point is I was not only raised blue collar, I remain blue collar and DAMN proud of it. It is not an “excuse”, it is a source of pride and pertinent to everything I am. So, I’ll damn well proudly proclaim it when I see it pertinent, thank you very much!
Finally, as we have both said before we have an affection for each other and baseball. Our conflicts come in the realm of politics, class, education, etc. I worked in an adversarial litigation system my entire career. I went toe to toe w/ attorneys and then had a beer w/ them that evening. I played sports against good friends. Hell, you play harder and tougher against your friends, that’s one of the great things about competition. We’re cool. I don’t think you’re trying to drive people off.
“kind of patronizing arent you? Thomas Sowell is pretty sharp. Do you have the facts to back up your claim? I would like to see them.”
Bron,
I’ll use a less broad pronouncement. Thomas Sowell is an ass who makes his living sucking up to the wealthy and has been well rewarded for it.
“And since you admit 25% is stiff for a guy making 100k, lets say 11% for everyone.”
Bron,
Really?
Make $20,000 and pay 11% = $17,800 disposable income excluding excise taxes
Make $40,000 and pay 11% = $35,600 disposable income excluding excise taxes
Make $60,000 and pay 11% = $53,400 disposable income excluding excise taxes
Make $100,000 & pay 11% = $89,000 disposable income excluding excise taxes
Make $250,000 & pay 11% = $222,500 disposable income excluding excise taxes
Make $1,000,000 & pay 11% = $890,000 disposable income excluding excise taxes
The median income for all US households before accounting for race, ethnicity and the area in which someone lives is about $50,000. This would leave them with $39,000 in disposable income forgetting excise taxes. The average sales tax in many States is 7 to 8%. Many State also have State and local income taxes. The “flat tax” is a very unfair proposition that puts the burden on those of lower income.
In NYC and its suburbs if you make $50,000 a year and have a family, you’ve got problems. The average apartment runs from $1,200 to 1,500 monthly. At $1,200 per month you are spending $14,400 on rent per year dropping your disposable income to $24,600. A State Income tax of 5% drops it to $23,000. Average utility costs of about $150 per month drops the disposable income to $21,200. Public transportation to and from work runs at least $1,500 per year yielding $19,700 in disposable income. Food costs, which are high in the area run a minimum of $150 per week, or $7,800 and disposable income becomes $11,900. Clothing and clothes cleaning for a family of four runs about $4,000 per year, yielding $7,900 disposable income. School supplies is probably another $1,000. Cable for TV’s and computers $1,200 per year yielding $6,700 disposable income. This is a conservative estimate of what $50,000 per year gets you in NYC and environs. Of course as ones income rises their expenses rise, but the initial benefit of the flat tax doesn’t rise and that is why it represents an unequal distribution of the fiscal burden of supporting this country.
id707,
Simply looking at the history of corporate abuses past made in the name of short term gain should provide you with ample evidence. Profit before principle is practically an unspoken mantra in the modern business world. Off shoring is built on this idea – sacrificing the local economies to maximize profits. That our government has been effectively purchased into the idea of incentivizing off shoring instead of incentivizing local production is a prime example of playing the short versus the long and profit over principle. Part of the long game genius of Henry Ford wasn’t that he build affordable cars, but that he kept his production local and paid his workers enough to buy the product they were making. He created product and enhanced market all while bettering the local economy. That’s good business.
Nice straw man you’ve got there, nick. I’ve never claimed this was my blog. However, if you don’t like me, that is entirely irrelevant to how this blog operates. That you can’t argue worth a damn is your problem, not mine. Argument, debate and discussion are all allowed here by the terms of this being a free speech zone.
Again, maybe a free speech blog isn’t what you are looking for. You seem to want a place that bows down to your unreasoned and poorly evidenced arguments as if they were gospel because you are somehow special.
Sorry. You’ll never get that here.
However, your whining isn’t going to change anything here either.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
GeneH,
A reply because you deserve it:
Let us not bother whether Walmart is listed or not, I was taking a chance there. The point that I was hoping to make, is that here was a company which was the expression of the ambitions of a family. Not one subject to the ruled I had sketched before. That of course is debateable, and let us discuss that instead of my mistake on the listing question.
IE what drives Walmart to refuse to protect the working conditions here and in Pakistan or wherever?
As for the point here:
“Odd how that rarely works in practice when profit is the prime metric.”
Please offer some proof of what you say. My surmises were no more than that. But I believe for now that it is the quarterly goal which of course must be modified by long-range planning, such as market dominance, 1971 strategy plans for the CoC, ALEC, buying poliicians, paying for laws, and keeping their subsidies (oil depletion allowance, etc) which in fact steer the companies. This was not profit per se, it could be expressed as the money market searches for the maximum margin. But now I am over my head and in deep water.
Quickly an aside to Messpo:
The simple reasons people don’t vote are two-fold.
1. They are not inculcated that it is worth their time. All what is said are lies.
2. They have never seen an honest politician, so what difference does it make.
Now you can ignore my comments as you wish Messpo. Just as long as others read them, I am satisfied.
And I do sincerely apprecíate, no irony or sarcasm, your offering such clear expositions of your viewpoint. Thanks.
“Mike, I give you my experience, and you disparage it.”
Nick,
I didn’t disparage your experience, I critiqued your taking a very local and personal anecdote and using it as “proof” of a much larger issue. You make the mistake of thinking that you can argue a countrywide problem by using a school district where you worked as proof of a much larger point about teachers. That is faulty logic and I call it into question.
“I give you a UIC study on corruption 2 days ago and you poo poo it.”
I “poo pooed” the study because it was flawed. Surely Nick, with your background in Criminal Law understand that “evidence” can often be flawed. The parameters used in coming to the conclusions in the study were to say the least shoddy, give what they were trying to determine.
“You have a bug up your ass about me, and you seem a bit paranoid about my hidden agenda.”
See Nick, you have it all wrong. I actually kind of like you and there are areas where we share much common ground, like our love of baseball. I think your presence here makes a good contribution to the blog and it is not my intention to chase you off. You have become a “regular” here and sometimes make valuable contributions. However, the purpose of this blog is to engender discussion. When issues come up I will counter arguments that I see as faulty, no matter who that person may be. I your case you have a habit of arguing from anecdote and citing sources without thinking through their possible bias.
My responding honestly to what is written is a matter of my personal integrity. As you can see in this thread I am disagreeing with both JT, who is responsible for my being a guest blogger and with Mespo who is a fellow guest blogger. That is what free speech and free discussion is all about. I keep telling people that there is no cabal running this blog and the guest bloggers very often don’t agree with each other, or with our host. It is that freedom that makes this blog unique and special.
Finally, please stop playing the “blue collar” card because I am a genuine member of the fraternity and it is meaningless. My father, who was a convicted felon and 9th grade dropout was a smart as anyone posting here and could no doubt argue them to a draw in any debate. My mother was no slouch either, also without an education. I’ll match the deprivations in my life anytime with yours and I don’t use it as an excuse of why people disagree with me. We both were smart enough to escape the hands we were dealt.
I have no compaints about how this blog is run. It is run well by Mr. Turley, not Gene Howington because it’s not GeneH’s blog. I’ve commended and thanked Mr. Turley several times..it’s in the transcripts. My concern is the likes of you, which is what I said explicitly just 15 minutes ago. You’re not going to play the “I’m a guest commenter” are you. That would be precious. This is free speech isn’t it??
Bron,
Conversely nothing says we can’t amend the Constitution to enshrine a barter economy if we so choose.
The point is that socialism is already perfectly legal as a fact. Economic models are toolboxes, Bron. Some problems are best served by one set of tools and some problems are best served by another set of tools. I think to enshrine any one model in the Constitution is a bad idea that limits our ability to shape the economy using the best tools possible for a given problem.
nick,
You have some kind of hangup on experiences because that’s all you have to rely upon to back your opinions. Again, my experience is none of your business and it is as irrelevant to the merits of my arguments as your experience is to yours. Arguments stand on logic and evidence. End of story. The “observation” you make about blog readership is contrary to the evidence of rapidly increasing readership on top of the fact that this isn’t your blog and none of that is your concern to begin with.
If you don’t like the way this blog is run?
Go start your own.
Gene H:
Nothing says we cannot amend the Constitution to enshrine socialism as the economic model.
Bron,
That entire comment at http://jonathanturley.org/2012/12/06/teachers-union-reportedly-releases-video-of-rich-urinating-on-the-poor/#comment-461027 is ridiculous.
Socialism is already perfectly legal.
The practices of capitalism aren’t enshrined in the Constitution. There is no one specific economic system endorsed at all other than we cannot adopt systems that don’t recognize private property to one degree or another which in the end only rules out Communism or certain totalitarian forms of governance (where all property is considered state property or property of the monarch, etc.). However, it can be argued that a degree of socialism is built in to the document in the form of both the General Welfare and the Tax and Spending Clauses as they both allow taxes to be collected and spent for the common good.
No amendment required.
I agree that humans like ‘fairness’. So why did the Koch brothers get filthy rich by stealing oil from Native Americans in Oklahoma? Why was that allowed?
When you look closely at these plutocrats wealth, it was not all fair game. There is always malfeasance in the form of theft, buying a court (Monsanto) buying a politician, duping people with the media, etc.
“:Fair would be for everyone to pay the same percentage of their income.”
And with that piece of advice, monodimensional and constipated as it is, though it is, I faint.
Gene, “Logic, argument, free speech, Turley’s blog he can ban, yada, yada yada..” I’m still waiting to read about your career experiences. Your response, “None of your business.” This is like Cuckoo’s Nest, dude. Mr. Turley obviously wants more commenters and more votes. He deserves that because this is a very good blog. My observations are they will always be limited because of the bullying by your likes under the guise of “argument.” If you don’t like that observation, I refer back to my mom’s adage and your free speech rant.
mespo:
no, it isnt greed. Fair is fair and you acknowledge that it is their money.
Humans like fairness. Fair would be for everyone to pay the same percentage of their income. And since you admit 25% is stiff for a guy making 100k, lets say 11% for everyone.
Voters 65 – 31 percent support higher taxes on households making more than $250,000 per year, with 84 – 14 percent support from Democrats and 66 – 31 percent support from independent voters. Republicans are opposed 53 – 41 percent. Latest Quinnipiac poll
id707,
“And GeneH, I will differ on the question of malice versus stupidity.
I would propose that it is not monkey see-monkey do either.
It is the the bottom line requirement that drives all corporations that are listed. All corps are lead by people who have several factors that determine if they get bonuses or even have a job. One of these is ROI to the stockholders, and the stock price development in a positive way.
And it is one of the closest things we have to real competition between companies in the same branch. They compete on the capital market.
If you don’t perform well, you’re out of a job, now and perhaps even in the future.
So, using the “knowledge” to produce acceptable ROI (yield–>dividends) and stock price development would seem to be the primary factors. This knowledge was at one time purchased and an intermal group maintains and betters it.”
Which comports with monkey see-monkey do practices. Often a company will see that another has improved their bottom line by adopting policy X and as a consequence they too will adopt policy X often without thinking through the greater ramifications beyond potential profitability. If profitability is your prime criteria, it lends itself to such such myopic decision making because it is a very narrow criteria and metric upon which to base success. It’s the mark of people playing the short game versus the long game.
“If it means covering yourself with a director of corporate ethics who goes to conferences concerned with employee safety, etc.,….this director is well informed on the situation and thus firm in his saying no to suppliers, which will consciouslly do evil to the workers. There is no other´choice.”
Odd how that rarely works in practice when profit is the prime metric.
“The odd part in the case of Walmart is that it is privately owned, and the factors are determined by the owners and not in a market competing for capital from investors.”
Actually Wal-Mart is a closely held but publicly traded corporation where the controlling majority of the stock is within the Walton family. It trades on the NYSE under the tag WMT. Today it is trading at:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. WMT NYSE $ 72.39 07Dec12 11:45 ET Vol. 3,171,395 Chg: $ 0.80 %Chg.: 1.11
ElaineM says:
“Elaine M.1, December 7, 2012 at 11:43 am
nick,
I once addressed the question of your educational experience on another post–but you never responded.”
=============================
Thank you for the opportunity that I asked you directly for evidence of what you accused me of doing. And you never gave so much as a word in reply.
I am still waiting for an answer.
I used only the one of your favorite tactics which you has used here on this thread. Show me, you say simply. Effective and just¨, I found.
But the obligation to answer the request for proof of your own assertions does not apply to you, as you never answered me.
=============
I came here to discuss the theme of the thread and how it then developed.
I did not come here to discuss the way we discuss and the defects in any person here. You are all still humans in my eyes, and it goes against my grain (lately) to abuse in order to win what, or to exact what revenge.
Silly.
Retiring to do better things.