As the Trayvon Martin tragedy has unfolded over the last month, one thing has become clear: We are still in the infant stages of dealing with race. And pop culture adds a trivialization to his horrible death.
Look at how we reacted: Initially, we were shocked. How could this have happened? Then we took sides: Martin was no angel. Or Zimmerman is a racist.
And the media added to that narrative. Remember the pictures of the two? Martin’s media image was that of an innocent-looking youth. In part because the picture the media used was five or six years old. And Zimmerman? Well, the initial picture — and the one still more likely used — is a years-old booking picture.
The media immediately took sides. And immediately had their hero and villain. Which is what the media need for any narrative like this.
Quickly enough, the professional racialists became involved. Jesse Jackson reappeared, and Al Sharpton showed up, too. To make fiery speeches designed to inflame their audiences. To their audiences’ credit, no violence has come from those demonstrations, impressive in light of the speakers’ tones and the apparent incredible irresponsibility of the Sanford, Fla., police in their investigation of the shooting.
The parents of each principle initially displayed some dignity at a time when many of us wouldn’t. But soon enough that was tarnished, too, replaced by the Martin family copyrighting his name and the Zimmerman family going on the offense, suggesting that Zimmerman was the victim.
This was followed by the predictable celebrity idiocracy weighing in. Somehow, show business types actually believe the rest of us care about their views (of course, we do, which is another sign of our delayed maturity).
And with social media, the celebrity idiocracy can give us instant insight. Which Spike Lee and Rosanne Barr did. Both tweeted what they thought was the Zimmerman family’s address. Lee had the wrong one, but Barr’s was correct. Of course, the family Lee tweeted immediately received death threats and had to flee their home. To Lee’s credit, he apologized for what he did and paid their costs. But why did Lee do that in the first place? A little vigilante revenge?
Barr, too, dropped the tweet with the address, but then — in the hubris of the celebrity idiot — said she’d retweet it if the police didn’t arrest Zimmerman.
Of course.
In the fog of all this lies some serious issues: Did the police underinvestigate the shooting because of Martin’s skin color? Was Zimmerman allowed to walk because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law? Is that law — which Arizona, too, has — so broad that it invites this kind of shooting? Should that law be reexamined? And if Jackson and Sharpton can become exercised over Trayvon Martin, why aren’t they equally exercised over this horrible fact: The number one cause of death for black men ages 15-34 is murder. And over 90 percent of those murders are committed by other blacks.
None of this is to say we shouldn’t be horrified by the death of Trayvon Martin. At the very least, Zimmerman shot an unarmed man after being told not to follow him, following Martin in his car, and getting out of his car to pursue him, all because he was black and wore a hoodie, thus making him “suspicious.”
But our culture makes a circus out of this shooting, suggesting that when it comes to race, we are still infants.
Mike McClellan is a Gilbert resident and former English teacher at Dobson High School in Mesa.
mnjcpa posted at 11:43 am on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
The only thing that has become clear in this tragedy is Obama's media partner's needed another issue to take the public's eye off of his abysmal policies. He has nothing else to run on so fan the flames of racism to target the uninformed.
Accuracy posted at 12:45 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
Mike McClellan: "And if Jackson and Sharpton can become exercised over Trayvon Martin, why aren’t they equally exercised over this horrible fact: The number one cause of death for black men ages 15-34 is murder. And over 90 percent of those murders are committed by other blacks."
Because, they are playing to the media and the cameras, and they are not leading the way down the path to true justice.
Conservative Reverend C.L. Bryant from Texas called Jackson and Sharpton "race hustlers" and said they are "acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy." The facts show there is no epidemic of whites killing black children in America. "The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are (other) young black men," said Rev. Bryant.
openureyes posted at 12:51 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
Nice column, Mike. How did you ever get it past Obama's media partners?
Dale Whiting posted at 3:24 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
Mike,
It's not as if we needed any proof. Just look at the preceding comments!
sockratties posted at 3:42 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
Nice column, Mike, well said. I saw Al Sharpton during a comment session on one of the TV news stations. Pure hype and fake outrage. He and Jackson must circle like vultures as Accuracy described. Such posturing is predictable and typical of self proclaimed men of faith. It's difficult to see how they can respond so quickly and so selectively. It must be the scent of blood that attracts them,.. or tears.
Rich posted at 6:10 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
Primaries, Romney all but settles the GOP nod, and a little bit of race baiting by the prez, and he's off the front page and out of the headlines, for a while. My lord are you people gullible. Fall for the 'we need to work at our racism' shineola every time. He wasn't hunting little black boys, get over it. It's just a little publicity ploy. It really doesn't warrant even a small percentage of the space it is getting, and it's only getting it to make sure Romney doesn't.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:33 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
Gee, I thought I saw the Romney story lead PBS, CBS, and NBC today. Must've forgotten their marching orders from Obama. And on the front page of all the daily papers today. Guess the Obama Murder Machine's gotta come up with the next race story to divert attention from Mittster getting his due.
And oh, boy, he really has to speak with MSNBC, which covered the primaries for three hours last night. As did CNN. They need to get their acts together.
But Mittster ought to be happy with the alleged lack of coverage Rich claims. This is the guy with the "vacation home" in California that he's remodeling, complete with a car elevator and about 10,000 sq. ft. of living space, the guy who said that the $300,000 he made one year in speaking fees was "not much," the guy who yesterday had the chutzpah to then say that Obama "might be a little out of touch."
And today he questioned Obama's "candor," this coming from a guy whose own campaign strategist has said the campaign will be like an Etch a Sketch, a guy who was for the mandate before he was against it, the guy whose positions are a political weathervane.
So, yeah, maybe the Mittster is lucky that the Obamamedia didn't focus on his latest idiocies. That Mitt is one lucky guy.
In the meantime, I wonder if Rich would be so sanguine about the Martin death -- "It's just a little publicity ploy" -- if it were his son who was shot.
samkat posted at 7:27 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
Dale: And what you you have said differently? By the way, 7 Black teenagers beat a Hispanic teenager senseless in LA a couple of weeks ago for no reason other than his ethnicity. What do you have to say about that? My comments are based on the news article.
Mike: What about the millions Obama has made off his books? What about his and his families' global jet setting at the taxpayers expense? If you want to knock one, please at least be fair and go after the other one as well. By the way, I am not a Romney fan so I have no dog to hunt.
Rich posted at 7:31 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
If my son were ever used in such an obvious, crass and transparent ploy, I'd probably try to counter it to any one who'd listen. Almost any honest person would. Of course I could trademark his name instead. One of the reasons this all happened is because his parents were the type of people to do that.
mnjcpa posted at 9:02 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
Mike gives a glaring example of what I described in another post. That the 1% is the new enemy of the state.
When I was growing up someone like Mitt was admired - gave away his family wealth and started on his own and earned it all. Contrast that with ridiculous private and public pensions where lifetime benefits are a goldmine, neither deserved or realistic.
How dare Mitt be successful - he should die a long tortuous death! Or maybe better still is to knock that giant chip off your shoulder.
Mike McClellan posted at 7:24 am on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
I believe the Rich/mnjcpa conspiracy theory -- the media have ginned up the Martin case as a smokescreen for Obama's "failed policies" -- is a pretty interesting theory.
And adds support to the main idea of the column, our infantile reaction to anything connected to race.
Rich posted at 10:59 am on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
Conspiracy? Mike it is a technique you can learn in a journalism school and P. R. firms employ it almost daily. If you're going to write as a journalist, at least take a couple classes and learn the discipline.
Louiejr posted at 11:01 am on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
The Supreme Commander should invite all concerned parties to 1600 Penn. Ave .
Have the lackies set up a nice scene in the Rose Garden and invite all the media .
Offer a variety of kraft beers ... chat a bit ... and announce at a WH briefing that
all is OK in the USA . That's what community organizers do .
openureyes posted at 11:38 am on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
Rich, deflecting is a technique. Redirecting is a technique. Both of which are employed too often on these forums by individuals with their own agendas.
Multiple national and local news sources using these techniques with the same agenda qualifies as them conspiring. Since this is your theory, it is a conspiracy theory.
If you're going to be paranoid, at least be proudly paranoid.
Rich posted at 1:50 pm on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
Wow, conspiracies. No, the same techniques and agenda does not equate to that, if it did all schools in a particular school district would be conspiracies, most companies in ant field would be. Wow, do we get far afield.
Paranoia? No, I don't think anyone is out to get me. I do think that it is so far into anarchy you do have to be careful, but that's about it. Politicos don't want to get me, just my money.
openureyes posted at 2:52 pm on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
I never typed the same techniques and agenda equates to a conspiracy, so I don't see the relevance of your examples, Rich.
mnjcpa posted at 3:00 pm on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
Seriously the best you've got is that Rich and I are conspiracy theorists? I use my own critical thinking skills to piece information together and it's anything but a conspiracy.
Obama can't run on his record - it's atrocious. His campaign said they wouldn't appeal to the white, low/middle class. First, the b/c question to Romney earlier in the debates. Next up the mythical war on women. Then the tragic Martin case when all of the facts aren't known. And now the oil companies is the next story. C'mon...admit it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that story unfold - it's class 100 in Community Organization.
My comment was that Mike's bought right in to the class warfare rhetoric that Obama is using as a campaign ploy and it stinks of jealousy and low self-regard.
We live in America folks, where opportunity is available to anyone. There is simply no excuse not to improve or succeed. And to hold it against someone that chose to take a different path than you is juvenile. Some of us do extraordinary things with opportunities - others let it dwindle. But when you snivel about Romney's success I'm going to call you on it.
Rich posted at 6:37 pm on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
"Multiple national and local news sources using these techniques with the same agenda qualifies as them conspiring. Since this is your theory, it is a conspiracy theory."?????????????? The relevance is in your sentence, not in mine.
'Conspiracy theories' is what they drag out when they have nothing to say and want the last word. Let them have it.
GOVCRIMESLAYER posted at 7:53 pm on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
VIOLENT WORLD PSYCHIATRY-PSYCHOLOGY REVEALED(mindless mkultra crimes performed by police and psychiatrists/psychologists)
USE OF MKULTRA + HUNGER GAMES TODAY....Use of psychology/psychiatry for mass population or ethnic cleansing as well as crimes to which we witness daily on behalf of Zionism/communism/liberalism.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpqc0u_part-80 EXACTLY HOW ETHNIC CLEANSING IS TAKING PLACE AGAINST NON SLAVS(German etc) THROUGHOUT EASTERN EUROPE SINCE WWII + REAL 911 REVEALED !!!
TRUTH ABOUT RUSSIAN COMMUNIST APPARATCHIK ALIKE GANGSTER AND TRAITOR DAVID DUKE OR 70 YEARS OLD US GOVERNMENT OBAMA(TERRORIST) NEWS
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpkfh7_part-78
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpmelt_part-79
Related to WHITES ARE NOT WELCOME IN AMERICA ANY LONGER !!! http://www.youtube.com/user/BostjanAvsec or rather http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xleq3o OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE RECORDED LIVE IN 2009 !!! EXILING WHITES(US citizens) WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE AND IMPORTING NON WHITES IMMIGRATION REQUIREMENTS FREE !!! WHY TO ACCEPT LIABILITIES FOR CRIMES COMMITTED WHEN WE CAN SIMPLY ASSASSINATE OUR VICTIMS(YOU) THANKS TO HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AND FREE PRESS/MEDIA(most severe CENSORSHIP OF GENOCIDE in entire history of human kind) !! NOT HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS, BUT ORGANIZERS OF GENOCIDE AGAINST WHITES AND SPONSORS OF BOGUS "MULTICULTURALISM" $$$ CLAIMS AT EXPENSE OF PERSECUTED WHITES(while minorities are awarded for and instructed by governments in bogus human rights claims, whites are simply killed if not perverted in multiculturalism garbage) !!!
For fast updates use http://www.facebook.com/people/Loki-Nagrind/100001962176474
REMINDER...MY YOUTUBE ACCOUNT WAS HIJACKED(March 07th, 2012) BY US GOVERNMENT WHILE PRIMARY E-MAIL AS WELL AS BLOGS WERE ALL SHUT DOWN FOR THE SAKE OF CENSORSHIP REGARDING GENOCIDE AGAINST ME PERSONALLY THAT INVOLVED ABDUCTIONS / MK-ULTRA BRAINWASHING / FORCED BRAIN ELECTRODE - CHIP IMPLANTS / HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION / BLACKLISTING / FORCEFUL UNEMPLOYMENT AND ASSASSINATIONS !!! ALL AGAINST WHITE(under "NAZI" lie) CIVILIAN POPULATION TODAY IN 2011/2012 ACROSS THE EUROPE AND NORTHERN AMERICA !!!
+(plus)
IF THEY BRAINWASH YOU WITH LIES ON HOW ELECTING OBAMA WOULD HELP TEA PARTY(there is already over one hundred million of so called minorities in US alone while you are everything, but treated as humans), PLEASE ASK YOURSELF WHAT ARE YOUR CHANCES OF SURVIVAL ONCE OBAMA IS AGAIN SELF-ELECTED(see video 77) & SINCE NEW LAW IS TAKING GUNS FROM YOU ALREADY TODAY(stop the violent world of psychiatry or lies - NOW OR DIE) !!!
openureyes posted at 9:56 pm on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
Rich, I'll break it down for you just this once, and though I don't like to capitalize words for emphasis I'll do that here as well.
I typed, "MULTIPLE national AND local news sources using THESE TECHNIQUES with THE SAME AGENDA qualifies as them conspiring," as a way of contrasting that sentence with the previous sentence, in which I stated that these techniques are used often on these forums "by INDIVIDUALS with THEIR OWN AGENDAS," which (obviously, I hope) does NOT qualify as them conspiring.
I never stated "any time multiple organizations use any of the same techniques and have the same agenda they are conspiring," which is what your response referencing schools in a school district and companies in a field implies I was stating.
See the difference? <-- note the single question mark - just as effective
If I stated that a club race is when a select group of drivers get together every Saturday night and drive cars to the finish line at Firebird Raceway, would you assume I meant anyone driving anywhere on Saturday night is club racing at Firebird? No. Driving to the grocery store, like many people do on Saturday night, is irrelevant to a conversation about club racing at Firebird.
I don't want the last word, but I am right. Go ahead and respond. I'll still be right.
mnjcpa, that you don't see the irony in injecting Obama into a column that has nothing to do with him and doesn't mention him at all, so that you can state he ought not to have injected himself into this situation is, well...
...wait for it...
Rich
mnjcpa posted at 7:53 am on Fri, Apr 6, 2012.
Openureyes – Obama called a random college student to inflame the birth control rhetoric and responded sophomorically to Martin’s tragic death while ignoring lawless bounties that have ruined a man’s life before the facts are known.
When a sitting President lowers himself to standards unbecoming to the office to elevate a political agenda by not squelching the race rhetoric – you bet it has something to do with this article. And if you can’t see this, maybe you should consider adapting your own moniker.
openureyes posted at 10:54 am on Fri, Apr 6, 2012.
mnjcpa, if your original point was that Obama's reaction was also infantile, that would make it relevant to the topic of the column, and whether you're right about that should be debated here.
But that was not your point. Your point, please correct me if I'm wrong, was that the media, by asking the president a question about current events and covering the answer (which is what they do - with greater fervor when the topic is as salacious as race relations in America) were attempting to put up a smokescreen through which the public couldn't see Obama's abysmal, atrocious failures. This point is also worth debating, but irrelevant to the topic of the column. As are Sandra Fluke, the "mythical war on women," Romney in the debates, and any of the other side-issues you've presented. My eyes are open wide enough to see right past them and maintain focus on the matter at hand.
VofReason posted at 12:20 pm on Fri, Apr 6, 2012.
The sad truth is the death of this kid is not a National story. It is sad that a kid lost his life and if the shooter did something wrong- he should pay for it. It does not indicate a trend. Those who are making it a story have reasons for doing so that go well beyond the truth of the situation.
mnjcpa posted at 3:29 pm on Fri, Apr 6, 2012.
openureyes - If you need to pick apart my and Rich's comments line by line be my guest but I don't know how that adds anything to the discussion other than you getting the last word that you said you didn't want. What you're debating or whether you've just become the new rule police of how opinions and comments are presented isn't clear either. VofReason sums it up best.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:28 am on Sat, Apr 7, 2012.
VofReason, you're right about Martin's case not being a national story per se. However, the story does shine a light on the Stand Your Ground laws that 22 states including AZ have.
Arizona's law mimics Florida's; here's the link --
http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/laws/0199.htm&Session_ID=83
And is equally ambiguous in language -- "A PERSON IS JUSTIFIED IN THREATENING TO USE OR USING PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON IF THE PERSON REASONABLY BELIEVES HIMSELF OR ANOTHER PERSON TO BE IN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY"
Those words leave a lot of leeway and put a pretty heavy burden on prosecutors, as has been seen in Florida. In fact, I can use deadly force if I believe another person's in danger, as Florida and Texas have experienced, where people have called 911 about a suspected crime in a neighbor's property, ignored the warnings of the 911 operator, and shot and in a couple of cases killed people.
We really should take a look at that law's language, particularly in light of Arizona's already existing castle doctrine laws that were on the books.
Rich posted at 5:56 pm on Sat, Apr 7, 2012.
"Your point, please correct me if I'm wrong, was that the media, by asking the president a question about current events and covering the answer (which is what they do - with greater fervor when the topic is as salacious as race relations in America) were attempting to put up a smokescreen through which the public couldn't see Obama's abysmal, atrocious failures." Yes.
"This point is also worth debating, but irrelevant to the topic of the column. As are Sandra Fluke, the "mythical war on women," Romney in the debates, and any of the other side-issues you've presented. My eyes are open wide enough to see right past them and maintain focus on the matter at hand." Which is?
You got to be the worst in the world at getting the last word. And don't capitalize, it doesn't help. Where dialectic leads is it's point, which is the point of dialectic.
Mike McClellan posted at 7:30 pm on Sat, Apr 7, 2012.
Two points -- one is what you quote are not my not my comments in this thread.
And as to the capitalization -- that was a cut and paste from the Arizona law -- the law is in caps, if you had taken the time go to the link I provided that gives us the 2006 law.
But instead of that, you'd rather case aspersions. Of course. Have at it.
In the meantime, we have a law that maybe contains such ambiguous language that it needs to be reviewed. Even the Florida governor agrees to that.
You'd rather debate capital letters. Perfect.
Cerulean posted at 7:39 pm on Sat, Apr 7, 2012.
Harvard University is conducting research called Project Implicit. It is thought that one can learn a great deal about ones thoughts, those that exist “outside of conscious control”, by answering questions in rapid succession, or in a ‘Blink’. One of the tests determines racism.
If you are interested in learning your racist quotient, you can take the test here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/research/
Rich posted at 9:03 pm on Sat, Apr 7, 2012.
Cerulean.
I am a WASP. My wife is a Jew. My children live here, in Europe and Asia. My family, in two generations is: Evangelical Christian. Roman Catholic, Buddhist, and Moslem. We are multi-ethnic, multi- cultural, multi-racial. In two generations, and my grandchlidren will be better. A lot of people talk the talk, they don't walk the walk. They give it an oped, a post. When I wanted to get married, only con artists and the UN gave me the option. The UN married me. The world is a bit better now, also a bit worse. It shouldn't be easy. When it gets too easy, it falls apart.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:40 am on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
I wonder if the law can take action against people like Spike Lee and Rosanne Barr whom endanger INNOCENT people's lifes with their vigilante-like tweets. If any harm came to those people, they could be indirectly responsible. It's people like Lee and Barr, and those whom follow up on it and threaten INNOCENT people that you have to watch out for.
It just goes to show MOST people that it's reasonable not to advertise your name, et al because such people exist, especially if you have INNOCENT people to be concern about.
mnjcpa posted at 11:01 am on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
Master rogue & Rich are right. If I combine their thoughts it's why I'm more vocal the fall 2010 & this fall's election than ever before. America has lost it's way - and In no small part by the divisive posture that Obama promotes. He's dishonest, uses Chicago thug style politics to enforce his opinions, and his policies have & will destroy America as we know. As long as someone agrees with his politics they get a free pass - but disagree and you get a full court press attack to discredit, dishonor, and attempts to ruin people's lives.
George Zimmerman's life has been ruined before all the facts are known. But worse still a young man's life is gone while his mother rushes to trademark his name.
Need I say more about cultural depravity?
Mike McClellan posted at 11:19 am on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
Divisive? You mean, like "He's a Muslim" or "He's a socialist" or "He wasn't born in America" -- in other words, "He's not one of us."
Right Wing politicians and media have drummed this into the nation's consciousness for the last four years, and judging from so far this year, will continue to do so right up to the election. With that meme, there's us and "him". But no, that's not divisive, right?
Even more divisive have been the tax policies of the last 30 years, policies that have led to the greatest income disparity in our country since the Depression. The middle class income's flat-lined, the poorest actually losing money in inflation-factored income, and the wealthiest continuing to earn more.
But that's called attacking the wealthy, when in fact the wealthy have been on the attack, what with the influence they have on tax policies the rest of us don't.
Don't dare criticize those policies, however, because you'll be accused of class envy.
Others would might characterize it as a call for fairness.
mnjcpa posted at 1:35 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
Divisive, as in looking America in the eye and threatening the Supreme Court. Divisive as in ignoring lawlessness like Black Panther bounties. Devisive about meaningless issues like b/c when it shouldn’t even be close to the topic of the day when we have $4 gas and mounting debt. Women care about jobs – getting one and keeping one. They care about whether or not to send their children to public schools that drive a political agenda. They care that they can worship the way they choose. Whether you agree with me or not – I don’t care – he’s divisive.
On your argument about the media. That’s pretty hard to do Mike when you have the majority of the news organization promoting your ideas.
Taxes on the wealthy –What’s hurt the middle class is the tax code is a monstrosity that has been used to solve social issues. As more people become dependent upon the government, and more jobs are shipped overseas there is less revenue for the government to pay the dependent class. Next year if nothing changes, small business people (those evil rich people) will be paying – in some states – over 60% of their income to fund the tax system. Tell me at what point does it make any economic sense to start a business that requires risk, when tax regulations make it unrealistic to do so?
And by whose standards Mike is that fair?
Mike McClellan posted at 2:12 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
mnjcpa, you write that "next year if nothing changes, small business people (those evil rich people) will be paying – in some states – over 60% of their income to fund the tax system."
In what sates will this happen? Could you give us the names of those states? I'm curious to read about those policies.
mnjcpa posted at 2:41 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
Mike - you might want to look at my moniker and think for a bit before debating me on taxes. With all due respect, you won't win. Try California and New York for starters.
Mike McClellan posted at 4:15 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
So I googled New York and small business taxes and I found this article by Bloomberg News -- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-07/new-york-senate-republicans-seek-tax-cut-for-small-businesses-in-jobs-plan.html.
Taxes last year on small businesses were cut, and there are bipartisan plans to cut them again this year, a 20% cut.
I couldn't find anything on proposed taxes on small businesses in California, but I did find an article from Fox Business that noted California has the third highest entrepreneurial activity in the country despite having one of the worst small business climates.
So I defer obviously to your expertise in this area -- could you give me an article or two that shows the 60% figure for California and New York small business people?
Thanks.
mnjcpa posted at 5:34 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
You're not going to understand it from pulling up an article - you have to piece it together. When the Bush tax cuts expire in December, the top fed rate returns to 39.6%. In liberal states like California & New York after cities get you the rate can be as high as 15%. Add the element of payroll taxes the employer has to absorb it tops 60%. Obama has a proposal on the table for a top-all in dividend tax rates of 44.6% which will sink US investments.
This article wasn't about taxes - but thank you for being inquisitive. With Obama in office we can say bye-bye to small businesses.
Cerulean posted at 6:24 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
Mnjcpa, “the top fed rate returns to 39.6%” My question is, "How much money does a ‘small business’ have to clear to be taxed at that rate?"
One more question, I know that the Clinton tax increase did not affect businesses with a profit margin less than $500,000. I thought that Bush simply retracted all of Clinton's increases. I am not sure. In any event, even if we lower the rate to income above $250,000. I can assure you that is not going to dissuade the majority of small (lets emphasize *small*) businesses.
mnjcpa posted at 9:36 am on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
Cerulean - Your tone strikes me as trying to decide if small businesses are paying their "fair" share. That argument falls on deaf ears. SB have something that trumps everyone else - risk.
There's nothing wrong with our business environment that capitalism can't fix. Our economic conditions is a result of liberal ideas that don't work. And if Obama has his way, it makes it unrealistic to risk money to start a business when increasingly more is taken away. I deal with hundreds of small businesses every year and dismiss it if you want - I see the results unfold every week. Not the phony, baloney information coming out of the media. Obama seems intent on destroying capitalism.
When we get to an article about taxes and small businesses - let's debate.
Mike McClellan posted at 3:37 pm on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
" Obama seems intent on destroying capitalism."
Sure, right. That explain how he destroyed what for decades was the pinnacle of capitalism, General Motors.
Remember how he destroyed that corporation?
Oh, wait. He didn't. He bailed out the corporation. Which has paid back almost all of what the Obama Administration gave it.
And is now almost wholly owned by stockholders. Thank God he failed at destroying that bastion of capitalism. We dodged a bullet there.
Hey, maybe he can destroy the housing industry. Whoops. Too late. Predatory lenders, avaricious Wall Streeters and craven politicians did a good job of that.
If only capitalism had been unfettered there, none of this would've happened, right? Those phony financial products served up by the likes of Goldman, Sachs and given AAA ratings by the services certainly had no effect on our economy, right?
I'm all for capitalism -- there's no better system for allowing hard work and ingenuity to succeed, no better system that allows for upward mobility.
But it's also a system more prone to abuse by the greedy. Which is why unchecked capitalism can destroy itself. As it almost did four years ago.
But for some, all history began in 2009. Nothing B.O. (before Obama) counts.
Slabside posted at 4:25 pm on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
@ Mike McClellan, " Oh, wait. He didn't. He bailed out the corporation. Which has paid back almost all of what the Obama Administration gave it."
Uncle Sam gave GM $49.5 billion last summer in aid to finance its bankruptcy. (If it hadn't, the company, which couldn't raise this kind of money from private lenders, would have been forced into liquidation, its assets sold for scrap.) So when Whitacre publishes a column with the headline, "The GM Bailout: Paid Back in Full," most ordinary mortals unfamiliar with bailout minutia would assume that he is alluding to the entire $49.5 billion. That, however, is far from the case.
Because a loan of such a huge amount would have been politically controversial, the Obama administration handed GM only $6.7 billion as a pure loan. (It asked for only a 7 percent interest rate—a very sweet deal considering that GM bonds at that time were trading below junk level.) The vast bulk of the bailout money was transferred to GM through the purchase of 60.8 percent equity stake in the company—arguably an even worse deal for taxpayers than the loan, given that the equity position requires them to bear the risk of the investment without any guaranteed return. (The Canadian government likewise gave GM $1.4 billion as a pure loan, and another $8.1 billion for an 11.7 percent equity stake. The U.S. and Canadian government together own 72.5 percent of the company.)
But when Whitacre says GM has paid back the bailout money in full, he means not the entire $49.5 billion—the loan and the equity. In fact, he avoids all mention of that figure in his column. He means only the $6.7 billion loan amount.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:11 pm on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
Last summer? The summer of 2011? Really? Meanwhile, the company has paid back $26.5 billion of the $49.5 billion total given GM as of December 2011. And we continue to get paid back in a couple of different ways.
This is what happens when you cut and past an article from Forbes magazine from two years ago -- you get information that's not up to date -- here's the link to what slabside quoted -- http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html
Slabside's basically plagiarized a dated article to claim a current situation. Oops.
mnjcpa posted at 5:50 pm on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
Yes, Obama is intent on destroying capitalism. When that topic comes up - debate me.
The primary reason General Motors was bailed out was the unfunded pension liabilities that sit on their books at over $65 billion and counting. Those same unrealistic pensions paid to uneducated workers for lifetime pension and healthcare benefits. That's a poor example of capitalism - we bailed out a pension fund and Obama's union buddy thugs.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:50 pm on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
You claim the "primary reason was the unfunded pension liabilities" -- yep, you're right about that as one of the big reasons. Unions certainly demanded very generous benefits, too generous no doubt.
But . . . why in 2009 was the pension liability so large? In large part, because the economic bottom fell out. And the GM pension -- like all pensions public and private -- took a big hit. Since you brought the pension liability up, why don't you explain to us why these pensions has such sudden liabilities? Why don't you explain why so many pensions bottomed out?
And while you're at it, why don't you explain the other reasons GM was in the tank -- too many divisions, too many models, too much arrogance from management over the years, too poor a reputation for quality, too slow to change. They were losing market share of the auto industry at a frightening rate, some of which was due to fixed costs added to the price of cars, but mostly because GM's auto reputation had taken an almost fatal hit.
Instead, you took the Fox News/ALEC position -- that the big bad unions led to the downfall, "the major factor." Oversimplification at its best.
But I'll give you this -- you almost hit the Fox Trifecta -- you blamed pensions, you called the union's "thugs" -- all you needed was "Chicago politics" and you'd have hit the Fox Jackpot!
mnjcpa posted at 8:07 pm on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
For starters Mike, your article was about race. And when I answered your question about taxes, rather than acknowledge that it made sense - particularly because you got skunked - now you've jumped to capitalism when the article was about race.
I don't listen to news shows. I get my information from economists, tax code, and financial markets. I was raised by a FDR democrat. But when you work in the financial markets for 25 years you learn a thing or two that influences your opinion.
It doesn't matter anyway Mike who gets in office - we're headed full steam ahead to a Greece-like America - all the numbers line up. Liberals don't understand that there isn't enough to take from 1% to pay for the others when the government spends $3.5 trillion a year and we only take in $2.5 trillion. If you want to cling to your false sense of understanding the topic be my guest.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:11 pm on Tue, Apr 10, 2012.
mnjcpa: Mike's like "Dale". When one point doesn't go his way, he quickly changes to another. Smoke and mirrors.....
Leon Ceniceros posted at 9:50 am on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.
The Columnist like all the others on the Left have this "hippie rose-colored glasses" view of Race Relations in America.
I lived in Los Angeles through all the Riots (except the Watts Riots that occured on "Black Friday", August 13, 1965 because I was on a Continental jet flying to my Basic Training Camp. The Pilot banked the jet so we could look out of the windows and see the stores going up in flames along Central Avenue where I was born).
I remember watching the TV and reading the LA Times on April 29, 1992 and seeing truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled out of his Semi-Truck on Florence Ave and Normandie (where I used to catch the bus to go home from Mount Carmel High School) and a group of Blacks hit him in the head with a chunk of concrete, kicked him in the head and groin, threw a cement block that smashed his jaw and then danced and jived around Mr. Denny's unconscious on the ground... for the News Chopper that was video-taping all of this (only one of the group went to jail...all the rest were either not indicted or acquitted). Mr. Denny never regained his health and was permanently disabled and had to learn to walk and eat again.
If that isn't enough....there was the LA Times Newspaper story about another Riot victim, Fidel Lopez. A "light-skinned" Guatamalan immigrant who was pulled out of his car in South-Central LA, robbed of $2000.00 dollars then the Rioters smashed him in the forehead with a ripped out car radio, tried to cut his ear off, stripped him naked and spray painted his body and genitals with a can of black graffitti paint. He would have been stoned or set on fire if a Black Preacher hadn't intervened to save his life. Mr. Lopez never fully recovered from his injuries either. No one was arrested for his assault even though the Neighborhood knew who the Rioters were.
SO THAT'S WHY THESE ......."STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS"...CAME INTO BEING BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING ......"V.I.C.T.I.M.S." ......ANYMORE.