For a married couple with an income of $80,000, that would drain an extra $221.48 in withholding from a semi-monthly paycheck
That's $443 dollars a month. That's a new Ford pickup payment. That's half a mortgage payment. That's money that could be deposited into your retirement account. You can read more here.
At least we have the comfort of knowing that our elected officials are spending the money wisely.
I love it....the new dick Democrats will fight for taxing the "rich" more, while also taxing the "poor" more, barring any retention of the Bush rates. Let's see....uhmmmm top "rich" rate now is 35%...goes to 39, and 11% increase. Now the bottom "poor" rate is 10%, but will go to 15% if Pelosi has her way as originally proposed (not to mention the foundation of funding for Pelosi Care)....whall goll dang, Martha, that's a 50% increase on the least able to pay it.
ReplyDeleteNothing like screwing the little guy in the morning.
Well, this does make it easier for me to continue my boxing training. I mean, since I get a discount and all that (otherwise I'd be priced out after the tax hike).
ReplyDeleteIf we're looking for bright sides, and I'm really not.
Jeez, you mean Bush cut taxes for someone besides the rich?
ReplyDeleteI thought "bushtaxcutsfortherich" was all one word!
For some reason I'm reminded of Louis the XVI.
ReplyDeleteAnd all the more convinced that the Federal Government is nothing more than the local Mafia. But with privileges, so to speak.
They can screw you whenever they want, but there is no reciprocity. A one way street to hell.
"No reciprocity?"...awww come on Luther, we can always elect new imbeciles....
ReplyDeleteimgw:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/aridog/PH2010091407011.jpg"
The MSM and loud view of the Tea Party movement by those opposed to it, reminds me of the designation, NOT distinction in fact, by white men, of Indian leadership and "Big Chiefs" in our history. A movement that is a loose confederation, at best, of people demanding to heard and not spoken for by anointed politicians and/or the MSM....who insist on "designating" certain individuals (some outrageously goofy) as "THE LEADERS."
ReplyDeleteThey don't "get it" ... or I don't. The real Tea Party is a place where consensus is necessary, no unilateral decisions. That's the actual way Native American "bands" operated. Whitey never got that either.
I'm currently reading a book about the Comanche Quanah Parker (Empire of the Summer Moon by S. Gwynne) and, as well as how they came to have horses and become a vaunted light cavalry, it describes the confusion of west Europeans settlers over how the Native Americans were actually organized.
If you find a copy, read pages 49-51 and see what I mean...an excellent distillation and description of an old conundrum.
Whitely always insisted the Plains Indians were tribal, even feudal in organization, because that was their experience in Europe as society and governance evolved, when neither was the truth. Then or now actually, except where they've adopted Euro ways. A "tribe" as portrayed by whitey was actually a language common collection of bands of similar ethnicity, but without any formal tribal organization...e.g., there were no big Chiefs of any tribe as discovered by whitey.
Whitey , however, insisted there must be so they choose various band chiefs as "big chiefs" ... I am sure much to the amusement of the Indians. Even a band chief couldn't unilaterally speak for his band, a consensus had to be reached. Whitey just never-never figured it out.
Sitting Bull, ethnically Sioux, culturally a Lakota, and actually a holy man within the Hunkpapa band, not really a war chief. In other words, a Hunkpapa of the Lakota Sioux ethnicity. A "War Chief" was more like Crazy Horse, an Oglala Lakota Sioux ... a different band where different consensus had to be reached on decisions.
When whitey saw huge gatherings of Sioux or Lakota they presumed, wrongly, that the more famous or flashy "chiefs" were the headmen, the Big Chiefs, who could/would speak for all Lakota or Sioux....never the case, except in whitey's ignorance, in the very libertarian, even libertine, every man has a say form of resolving things. No government per se, not even one bureau.
Is that where we're heading if ordinary people's opinion continue to be dismissed as irrelevant? In a politial world where old folks are considered the "tea bag demographic" ... and soon enough irrelevant just by virtue of that age demographic presumption...unless anointed by magic wand as "young" (think "bright") like Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi (70 what?) Barney Frank, et al.
I am soon 68, grey as hell, but neither fat nor paunchy, so do I fit the tea bag demographic? Should I get a mullet hair cut, then make a sign that says "Will work for Ammo" and jump in front of some MSM cameras and spout off?
My Congressman is a black Democrat Octogenarian (2nd longest serving Congressman in the House) ... does he fit the demographic other than by skin color? He was recently hectored, by the President, along with the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus, as NOT doing enough. You think he considered that advice worth listening to?
Are we what we say or what others say we are?
Rant over. x(
For some reason I can't copy and paste here.
ReplyDeleteGood comment, Ari. As you do get to the root of the problem I think. Not saying that to BS you but think it is true. 'ordinary people' are not a recent phenomenon, and though you somewhat paint ordinary Indians as having an equal say in decisions I wonder just how true that was. Having a voice, yes, would certainly agree with that, but in my mind any sort of tribal nature would have had 'natural' leaders who could assuage the better sense of others in the group. Now, sorry to bring up personal experience, but it is all I know.
But in any group setting I made clear, unless the shit was literally running through the fan, that everyone had a voice. That I wasn't perfect and that I relied on everyone to speak up in order to meet the goal, whatever that goal may have been.
The problem now is that we have let the youngsters take over, much as 'Wild in the Streets' predicted, or wished, back in 1968.
Our present leaders, pretty much both sides of the aisle, know of nothing but their power. A power that subsumes them, envelopes them. Again, as you say, they could give a shit less about the 'ordinary people'.
Oh, perhaps a scary picture, but not nearly as scary as her opponent.
Luther I like your point about the nature of "consensus". Effective vetos by a minority of one are exceedingly rare.
ReplyDeleteNamely that it is - in practice - less than perfectly egalitarian.
There are many different tribes in the tech world that operate by "consensus". Let me tell you, the pressure on the holdouts in any decision can be immense, when confronting a charismatic leader and a majority contingent of his (or her!) fanboy followers.
I'm finding this is true in the venture capital tribal system too. I'm attending a meeting on Monday where mine will likely be the opinion of the tiny minority. I'm pretty much trying to figure out how to get rolled over with dignity. I'm sure I'll get the chance to talk; not entirely sure I'll be much heard, and quite positive I'll get pressure to accept the "unanimous" decision of the group.
I can't imagine the Plains Indians had it much different.
On the flip side, the "command and control" view of Western political and corporate governance has always been over-rated in terms of how things actually operated.
Everyone in corporate life knows that the "org chart" is a lie. The trail of influence and the process of decision making is always fluid and much more consensual than the org chart would indicate. Powerful corporate leaders get their power not by ordering people around, but by knowing who can f**k them (including many "below" them in the org chart), and getting all those guys and gals to buy in before issuing "orders".
(True, some would be leaders have had to learn that the hard way. I'm proud to have dished out a few of those "hard lessons to would be leaders" myself. :D )
I think all cultures have operated on some form of consensus. This is a simple process of Darwinian evolution - power cultures with an if I wanted you to have an opinion I'd have given you one attitude tend to die without issue. (Hopefully this describes the current Congressional culture).
Where you get the differentiation is with issues like how information is compartmentalized, and how dissent is handled. Thousand and one flavors.
When cultures tell you how they make decisions, what they're telling you are the stories they make up about themselves, not how they actually operate.
Oh, yeah, and about politics and the Tea Party and the election and suffz:
ReplyDeleteMy bottom line is very simple.
Fiscal and monetary wise, we're f**ked.
I think there's a very big "trend reversal" in the works with regard to political power.
Old route: power goes to the more effective liar (or deluded idiot, take your pick). Everything's fine, and the bad things that happened are other people's fault and we'll claw stuff back from them and it will all be awesome.
New route: We're facing massive economic pain; all the easy palliatives will just make things worse in the long run. Jobs are not coming back next month or the month after. Things are going to get more expensive. The "prosperity" of the last decade was a debt-fueled illusion and we can't go back to it - and we're pretty much all culpable for it, one way or another. There's a road to future prosperity but it's long and hard. It's that hard road, or decline and collapse.
I actually think there's a material chunk of the electorate who are desperate to hear the truth from someone.
Of course that could be wishful thinking.
But - I would observe - Britain has been one step ahead of the US throughout the whole financial crisis. Maybe truth and austerity will be implemented here sooner than later.
Luther said: " ... and though you somewhat paint ordinary Indians as having an equal say in decisions I wonder just how true that was. Having a voice, yes, would certainly agree with that, but in my mind any sort of tribal nature would have had 'natural' leaders who could assuage "
ReplyDeleteI don't think I said ordinary Indians all had an "equal" say, just that they did have some say and no decisions were unilateral...by a hierarchical chief or headman.
As I understand it: In a "band" influence is gained by accomplishment according to the band's values, with charisma playing a big part in terms of influence, too. Therefore consensus tends to gravitate toward the opinions of the accomplished charismatic leaders....who held their positions by dint of influence, not election or appointment. There were no "staffs" or "agencies" formed in Indian culture in most cases, with perhaps a very few exceptions on the east coast. The "Dog Soldiers" of the Northern Cheyenne were more a fraternity than an "agency" or structured military arm of governance.
My point is that there are NO formal hierarchies or defined organization in band. That doesn't mean that some don't have more influence that others based upon the criteria cited. A band could be seen as a precursor to tribal organization which is closely related to feudal organization, an evolution of clan organization.
This drove the white man crazy as he endeavored to insist that the Indians appoint/elect a head chieftain, in a tribal format, at least....a concept they had no frame of reference to even consider.
By the way, I am NOT a notional believer in the "noble savage" line of thinking...it's nonsense and more "projection" of the Kumbaya kind by latter day whitey. Barbaric savagery is not an attribute of nobility (for either side)... it is however a either cultural bent or a strategy & tactic in guerrilla war. Genocide, in elementary form, may be the only way to defeat a "band" with no head per se...and it was practiced by bands against bands as well as by whitey against bands. No one's hadns are clean.
I connect this phenomena with the Tea Party simply because it is, also, a collection of "bands" of disgruntled citizens ... without formal organization structures between bands. It is the MSM...e.g. "Whitey"...who assigns "leadership" status by fiat. IN other words, impose their preconceived notion of organization upon the Tea Party Movement.
Without wearing out the topic, I can say that where I am in sympathy and agreement with Tea Party positions ... I am absolutely opposed to even the inkling that Palin or O'Donnell or Rand Paul might be leaders of anything I represent. I am comforted by the fact that they are not, except in the minds of the media and the opposition.
I can't pick up a paper today with another item about O'Donnell, who will lose her election Tuesday, as she has all others, and successfully end a 6 term Republican incumbency for that office. That's Nancy Pelosi think (consider the fate of Bart Stupak, a long term conservative Democrat.), without the plastic surgery.
Lewy,
ReplyDeleteI had set this up to reply under each of your pasted paragraphs but ran into HTML character limits. Not sure if it will make sense now but I don’t have time to re-write.
Of course, and I don't know that perfect egalitarianism is either practical or even a desired outcome, which I guess is not what you are implying either. But often that isn't really the point, after all. The real point, I think, is in just letting folks be heard, if you get my drift. Often that, more than anything is enough for consensus. And consensuses not only in debate but further down the line in motivation.
Sure, and that's the deadly consensus in my mind, that of an overly charismatic, and usually insecure, leader. Which is why ‘true’, and not just charismatic, leaders don't allow themselves nor tolerate 'fanboys', so to speak. If the table is open for discussion then it is open to all with vigorous and honest discussion. Which reminds me of that round-table discussion where the 'O' chided someone across the aisle with 'we won' or something along those lines. Everyone should have just up and walked out given the usefulness of any further discussion.
That almost sounds like a jury room, your venture meeting, or at least the last jury I served on. It was 10/2 convict with me and another holdouts. So we all talked for two hours. We both changed our minds in the end but I can't think of a better example of how 'true' consensus is reached. Dwelling on the facts and not personalities though of course personalities can enter into the jury process.
That time it didn't. Let me read down to Ari’s comment before I respond to ‘Plains Indians’.
Yes, well, here you've nicely illustrated the conundrum of leadership. Perhaps summed up in 'it's not what you know but who you know'. OTOH a good leader not only knows that but let’s others know that he knows that. That buys involvement and focus on what has to be done for success. Haha... yep. Always helpful to tighten the focus of those 'would be's'.
I mostly agree here (certainly about Congressional culture) but must bring up the inevitable exception. The Marines specifically (at least in my day) and the military in general do tend to the "...I'd have given you one..." manner of command and control. But it is not hard set, consensus leadership is suffered and allowed, most especially if it gets results that exceed the average. And the beauty of it is that if you can swing such a thing the results always exceed the average.
Yep, and that's the nail on the head. And most especially on information flow. I intensely dislike information hoarders; they are or should be the bane of any organization. And true, handling of dissent is often the 'tell' of any organization or culture, again, much as our current Congress and President illustrate how it shouldn't be handled.
Heh... though I'm not a culture I can only laugh at myself here. Not that I'm entirely FOS but I'm not always sure how I've gotten things done, just that I have.
Ari,
ReplyDeleteYou’re correct, you didn’t say equal. I think what I meant by that was that ‘voices’ were equal, in the sense that those voices were heard at least even if not ultimately given consideration.
It’s insightful, the rest of what you say about Indian ‘leadership’ and especially your notional connection to the Tea Party with its lack of organizational roots and defined leadership. IOW’s it is a hydra headed movement in a way and, as you mention, much more difficult for the MSM to attack. Thus the broad calls of racism and other such slurs.
While I understand and agree with your thoughts on certain of the candidates I do believe that if elected they won’t go very far up the structure, such as it is. If I were a Delaware resident I’d have to hold my nose and vote for O’Donnell. Besides, is she really that bad? Yes, she has some confused world views, but damn, don’t we all.