President Obama, on creating a deficit-reduction deal that includes increased tax revenue:
"This idea of balance, this idea of shared sacrifice, of a deficit plan that includes tough spending cuts but also includes tax reform that raises more revenue, this isn't just my position. This isn't just a Democratic position. This isn't some wild-eyed socialist position."
That’s right, Barry, it is not. In fact it is both a rational socialist position and the consensus of the vast majority of Americans.
Those are very nice words, though, as you prostrate yourself to gut public programs and safety nets while appeasing the Republican Greed Machine.
Gotta love that “bi-partisan” deal making where this “idea of balance” gets thrown under the bus so you can be seen as a...as what, exactly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
128 comments:
Since the late '70s there's been a consensus that Jimmy Carter was the weakest president in American history. That honor now goes to Obama.
I dunno, Tom...he's been a strong Republican president. ;-)
Obama is the same man as president that he was as senator.
He's not living up to the media image that was constructed for his campaign, and why should he? That's not the man he is.
As Senator he worked hard to promote the Bush doctrine. He not only voted for almost everything Bush wanted, he also went around the floor strong arming other Dems into supporting Bush's policies.
He's not a weak president. He's being exactly the kind of president he intended to be.
It's not his fault if you were tricked into thinking he was someone else.
Dave, a couple of questions. If there were a plan that would increase tax revenue but keep tax rates where they are currently, would you support it? For example, simplifying the tax brackets, tax code, modifying deductions, etc.
What is the highest income tax rate that you could stomach before you would say that we're asking too much of "the rich?"
In the previous thread, T.Paine asks, "if these loopholes were so damned pernicious to the left, why the hell didn’t they close them when they owned the Senate, House, and Presidency?"
There haven't been any real liberals in power since Carter.
HR, I'm still a Flat Tax guy.
Somewhere in the range of 15%-20% across the board. Let the bean counters work out the exact number.
No subsidies. No write-offs.
I'm not clear on why Social Security income should be taxed. We might restart the slippery slope on retirement income...
That at least will give folks something to keep arguing about.
Weasel, I love the idea of a flat tax and I'm happy to know there's something that you and I can agree on.
In my mind, a flat tax is the only truly way to ensure everyone pays their fair share, but by saying that I've probably thrown Mr. Myste into a rage.
I think it is interesting that the libs who post here are trying to distance themsleves from Obama's presidency by saying he is not liberal enough.
I'd like to know what posters like JG and Dave think Obama should have done in stead of what he has done to be liberal enough for them?
Also, I love the idea of a flat federal tax! We can argue what the rate will be all day and night, but what fairer way to spread the pain of big govt taxes around than by EVERY ONE paying the SAME % of their income in taxes!
I agree about S.S. checks being taxed..It is the dirty little secrete that few want to talk about, you pay taxes on the money taken out of your check while your working and you may have to pay taxes on the same money you get back when you retire. It's pure double taxation.
Tax the money going in or coming out but not both ways!
Weaseldog, I would not be opposed to your flat tax proposal either, especially with no loop holes or write offs.
I would exempt people below a certain poverty threshold to be determined though.
T.P.
Ok if you exempt people below a certain level of income, are you going to still give them earned income credits?
I would not make paying a income flat tax a means tested program. What I would do is to not require those who are physically or mentally disabled from paying any tax. Any expense to care for them would be deductible dollar for dollar from exposure to the flat income tax. IE if care cost is $10,000 a yr and the care takers income is $30,000, the care takers taxable income in this case would be on $20,000.
On S.S. it gets taxed just once, going or coming out.
Investments that are not 401K or IRA, taxed coming out. Capital gains treated as income, same flat tax rate as income.
I don't agree JTF. I would keep a standard deduction in place, get rid of all refundable tax credits (no one should earn income from the IRS), but require that everyone who earns income pay at least $1 in taxes.
So the standard deduction would exempt income up to $5,350 (single) but still owe $1 in taxes. Above $5,350, everyone pays a flat tax.
HR,
How would you treat Corporations and Unions, no deductions after $5350 the rest of the income taxed at the flat tax rate in force?
YUP, I do.
Oh, and I vigorously support a flat tax. No deductions.
@Just the Facts
"How would you treat Corporations..."
I was really talking about personal income taxes, not corporate. And there are ideals and reality -- a flat tax is in an ideal world, but I don't think it would every be reality.
As for corporate taxes, in the real world, they need to be lowered so that the U.S. is competitive worldwide. I'd suggest a law that ensures our corporate tax rate never exceeds the median corporate tax rates of other developed nations.
Tom, JG, and Wease,
Obama is one of the weakest presidents in his ability and/or willingness to help Americans. He is owned more by the big money elites than most democrats. Yes, he is weak in the sense of accomplishing limited gains for the people, while serving Wall Street and insurance interests and extending to the Right tax cuts and weak regulatory oversight.
In another sense, Obama has more power than his predecessors. Thanks to the Bush Administration’s unitary executive usurpations, Obama now has the power to execute an American citizen as a terrorist, without trial or conviction. Just imagine how much power will be in the hands of the next president...and the next. Unlike Obama, some of us are really looking forward, and we don’t like seeing what his “looking forward” may bring us.
HR:
No, I’d support a plan that would increase revenue and restore tax rates to mid-Reagan era levels. I think that would make most Americans happier. Let’s not allow me to set the tax rates for the rich. How about we do it democratically?
Here’s a measure of how many Americans want to, at the very least, end their Bush/Obama tax cuts. (They also want to keep Medicare and have the Social Security cap raised.)
Last April’s McClatchy-Marist poll said. “On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed.... Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent.”
Last April, the Washington Post-ABC News poll found that “Seventy-two percent of respondents want to raise taxes on the rich to help reduce the deficit.”
The New York Times/CBS News poll: A full 72% of adults approve of increasing federal taxes on households making more than $250,000 starting in 2013.
You get the idea. No wonder you guys hate democracy; that would let us have our country back.
I realize I would have to pay more taxes too, if I had my way. It's called "shared sacrifice".
"Let’s not allow me to set the tax rates for the rich. How about we do it democratically?"
Dave, what about no taxation without representation? It seems unfair to let the un-wealthiest 90% decide how much the wealthiest 10% should have to pay in taxes.
Just as it seems unfair that 47% of Americans aren't paying any income tax today (that total will continue to rise). It just forces politicians to seek the votes of the non-taxpaying majority, who naturally have no problem with taxes going up.
I suppose you will read the above and see it as confirmation that I hate democracy.
HR,
You asked me. That was just one suggestion.
"what about no taxation without representation?"
Another good question. The elites have more than their share of both wealth and political representaion in our system, thanks to their free speech money.
Now the question is, why is the middle class taxed? Nobody represents us now that the rich have bought up all the representaion.
I would suppose you'd think it's unfair for the unwealthiest 90% to decide who would be the president of all of us too.
Obama now has the power to execute an American citizen as a terrorist,
That's a stretch. We haven't executed anyone. However, I agree Bush expanded the power of the executive branch a little much for my taste, and I do agree Obama is taking full advantage.
The only taxation I see that isn't voted on is that through the printing of money - the unseen tax of inflation brought to us via the FED. Things cost a lot more than what they did even a few years ago... yet wages are still sticky. I think Congress should do it's job and manage the currency, not the FED with it's arbitrary quanitative easings and 0% interest.
Dave,
I believe you have exposed in a good sense, the difference between libs and cons. You stated "Obama is one of the weakest presidents in his ability and/or willingness to help Americans."
This implies that in your mind govt exists to take care of people by taking from some and giving to others. It's a modification of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in 1875.
Cons feel it is the job of govt according to our Federal Constitution to protect the states of the Union from foreign and domestic threats, etc,. It's main task is NOT to ensure that the slogan put forth by Marx becomes reality.
I would support the action of a state(s) that with in it's borders wanted to provide for it's citizens that which libs want from the Federal level. By doing so, those who support that type of govt influence/control can move to those states and those who didn't could leave.
What do you think about this Dave? If state A wants to do as you said, "help Americans" that live with in it's borders, so be it.If state B takes the opposite view, so be it.
Free,
Maybe the Obama Administration hasn’t assassinated an American yet, but they claim the authority to do so.
JTF,
You portray the Rightist mentality, which is similar to the fascist mentality as well, towards liberals with your eagerness to compare us to Communists. I was referring to the Constitutional authority to “promote the general welfare”. A government of, by and for the people would also imply helping them would it not?
Today’s Party of Lincoln would be slave-owning aristocratic secessionists in the old days, rather than defenders of the Union, as the governor of Texas has suggested. Those slave owners, like today’s GOP, hated a minimum wage.
Heathen Republican, you mentioned...
"Dave, what about no taxation without representation? It seems unfair to let the un-wealthiest 90% decide how much the wealthiest 10% should have to pay in taxes."
So, let me get this straight. You're implying that wealth should be the determinant of representation? Should we then assign, for example, race as the determinating factor in representation (as it was conceived at the founding of this country)? Or possibly gender? Or maybe sexual orientation?
You may not hate democracy, but you certainly don't seem to understand what it is. Since ancient times, the principles of democracy have been reflected in the idea that all citizens are equal before the law and have equal access to legislative processes, something the disparity of wealth has dampened in this country -- particularly in the last few decades.
Free0352, you responded to Dave's statement that "Obama now has the power to execute an American citizen as a terrorist", by stating...
"That's a stretch. We haven't executed anyone."
Well, no, we haven't...yet...but the power to label and prosecute as such is now in place, and that's what Dave was implying.
You also said...
"I think Congress should do it's job and manage the currency, not the FED with it's arbitrary quanitative easings and 0% interest."
I agree with your intention, although you're technically incorrect. The Treasury Department manages revenues.
As an aside, President John F. Kennedy, with the signing of Executive Order 11110 in June of 1963, attempted to start the process of dismantling the privately owned Federal Reserve and returning to the U.S. Government the power of issuing currency though the re-issuance of silver certificates in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Five months later he was assassinated. Five months after his death, all the silver certificates in circulation were recalled.
free0352 said... "Obama now has the power to execute an American citizen as a terrorist,
That's a stretch. We haven't executed anyone. However, I agree Bush expanded the power of the executive branch a little much for my taste, and I do agree Obama is taking full advantage."
Right, he hasn't. But he's been granted the authority to do so.
It's not a stretch, it's Justice Department legal opinion from Conservative Activist Judges.
Just the Facts! said... "Dave,
I believe you have exposed in a good sense, the difference between libs and cons. You stated "Obama is one of the weakest presidents in his ability and/or willingness to help Americans."
This implies that in your mind govt exists to take care of people by taking from some and giving to others."
That's the system we have. you're taxed so that your money can be given to the wealthy and foreign interests.
I understand that you want to be taxed higher and more free money given to rich people and that's what you're fighting for here, but some of us wrong thinkers, would like to end that practice.
Dave, every conservative knows that the clause in the US Constitution that talks about the Common Welfare is socialist talk.
Actually every liberal should know that too.
Because it comes right out of socialist theories on the rights and privileges of the commons.
You can't expect conservatives to get behind the socialist agenda described int he US Constitution can you?
It turns out that the Norway Terrorist did kill those people for Jesus.
The youth camp was meeting to discuss Palestinian Statehood and peace in the Mid-East.
So he killed 92 Christian sympathizers to deal a blow against Islam.
Does anyone here agree with what he did? I'm seeing comments on other boards that suggest he's becoming a hero to some.
Does anyone think this might be a new level in the war between Christianity and Islam? Will we see more of these terrorist acts?
Wease,
Is it just me, or have you noticed we "Marxist liberals" seem to care more about actually conserving our democracy and Constitutional Bill of Rights than the so-called "conservatives"?
The insanity and inhumanity of Corporatist Republicanism has left us on our own as defenders of truth, justice the American way.
Those radical Rightists give us true conservatives a bad name.;-)
Dave Dubya said... "Wease,
Is it just me, or have you noticed we "Marxist liberals" seem to care more about actually conserving our democracy and Constitutional Bill of Rights than the so-called "conservatives"?"
Like the Holy Bible, they pick and choose what they want out of the Constitution and ignore the rest.
"You're implying that wealth should be the determinant of representation?"
@Jefferson, I did no such thing. I'm pointing out that if taxes are decided on democratically, then large groups will force small groups to carry the tax burden. Hell, we have that now because of populist politicians.
I don't like Dave's idea of voting on tax rates. We are not a democracy; we're a republic. We allow the majority to make decisions as long as they don't violate the rights of the minority. Allowing the people to vote directly on tax rates would invite the bottom 90% to make the top 10% pay everything.
Heathen Republican, you stated...
"We allow the majority to make decisions as long as they don't violate the rights of the minority."
Yes, we are supposedly a democratic republic. True. But, conversely, does that allow a minority to make decisions allowing the violation of the rights of the majority?
"does that allow a minority to make decisions allowing the violation of the rights of the majority?
Of course not, but I don't see that happening either. Well, let me amend that... I saw a Democrat president and congress impose health reform against a very vocal majority opinion.
But I assume you're agreeing with Dave's earlier statement that the rich and powerful run our government. This goes back a couple of posts on corporate speech and corporate money... I just don't see it and haven't seen the evidence.
The rich are able to buy more influence, but their ability to speak louder doesn't infringe my ability to speak.
Dave,
I need your help. How is Obama or any President supposed to take care of the people? Where are the resources needed to take care of the people coming from? How will Obama or any President decide which people need to be taken care of and which ones don't?
I under stand your worthy desire to take care of the less fortunate of those amongst us. But what I cant get my arms around is your belief system that says it's ok to take from some to give to others. Not trying to be a smart ass, but doesn't that sound the same as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
How is your support of increasing taxes on those who can afford it any different than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
JTF,
Obama, and every other elected federal official, swore upon oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
What you call my "belief" is written into our Constitution.
This includes Section 8 that says: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
This lets the government take my tax dollars and give them to murderous thugs at Blackwater, and it allows the government to tax the rich for the general welfare of We the People.
So you see, socialist values are in our founding documents and rule of law. Perhaps you should learn the difference between socialism and communism. One accomodates democracy and the other, like Corporatist Republicanism, scorns democracy.
JTF,
I should add section 8 also provides, "To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,"
We are brothers Dave Dubya.
If more of these right wingers posting here read books by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Saul Alinsky, like us, they would truly know what Democracy is all about! Until then, these people will continue to live lives of ignorance!
Share the Wealth, Share the Wealth!
Share the wealth, share the wealth, how is that different than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
“Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev.”
Beneath the tattered, fading banner of reactionary liberalism, Obama struggles to sustain a doomed system. Democrats’ dependency agenda — swelling the ranks of government employees, multiplying government-subsidized industries, enveloping ever-more individuals in the entitlement culture — is buckling under an intractable contradiction: It is incompatible with economic growth sufficient to create enough wealth to feed the multiplying tax eaters.
Is it just me, or have you noticed we "Marxist liberals" seem to care more about actually conserving our democracy and Constitutional Bill of Rights than the so-called "conservatives"?
I as a third party dude, have noticed the opposite. I always see liberals trying to use the power of the state lately to force people to do things they think people should do. I call it Liberal Paternalism.
And since we're advocating direct democracy, I say we get a new law passed that requires welfare queens to get a job within 30 days or face the death penalty, ditto if they test positive for drugs, alcahol, or nicotine. Also, I think their houses should be inspected and if found dirty, well... see death penalty. They should also be baned from having children, and the children they have now should be taken from them forever since all they do is neglect them anyway and continue the cycle of welfare dependency.
Of course... that's why we don't have direct democracy, because I'm pretty sure I could get a majority vote on that one... there are a lot of people who crew up in low income areas like I did who hate their neighbors. People are sick to death of the leeches, good thing for the leeches they have some really good laws to protect them.
So the problem is, if you liberals get to have your way with the rich, then my crew gets to have it's way with the poor.
So make my day. I've got more than a few people back in the old home town whose lives I'd like to destroy because I hate everything about them. If we're throwing freedom out, I can always find a sliver lining. Besides, I'm not rich anyway.
JTF,
Same old squawk. How are you different from a parrot? Fascists always loved calling liberals commies, you know. Not only does it make it easier to hate liberals, it's easier than debating with documented facts and reason.
How are you different from a fascist? You've shown us your similarity.
George,
Speaking of parrots.
Nice cut and paste. It's much more simple than thinking of what to write, isn't it? Who's words are they anyway? Some greedhead, no doubt. Maybe that's Rush. You love Rush, don't you? Poor Rush. He can't afford to pay another dime in taxes. How could he afford to eat?
Nice to see Free, "keeping hate alive".
Dave,
Why the rash of shit? I just asked a simple question and you have to go Nazi on me. If you can't tell me the difference between "share the wealth share the wealth" and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" just say so, I wont think any less of you.
I guess my biggest surprise is your claim that I called liberals, commies. I didnt, I just asked a question that any true liberal should be ready, willing and able to answer. As a conservative, I'm asking you to educate me and here is your big chance.
Simmer down for a minute, take a chill pill and see if we can still have an adult conversation. Ok?
"Give a man a fish and he will eat today.
Give him a fish every day and he will vote democratic forever!"
Just The FOX(R),
OK, now you’re wasting my time. You have nothing to add, recognize none of my points, and you are demanding attention like a whiny brat.
Why don’t you tell us something we don’t know, for a change?
Now you're asking me to "educate" you. It’s too late for that. You didn’t read or comprehend well enough what I’ve already written, information that you probably did not know. Your failure to recognize and discuss it shows the dishonesty of your request.
========
“Why the rash of shit? I just asked a simple question and you have to go Nazi on me.”
Note to Readers:
I just asked a simple question about how he is “different from a fascist”, after showing his similarity.
This is the part where the Rightie shows he can dish it out but can't take it. He repeats like an incessant myna bird his commie insinuations, and whines about not getting the response he wants. That’s some “adult conversation” there, eh?
I think Just the FOX(R) accused me of being a Nazi, didn’t he? What exactly would he mean by “go Nazi” on him? If anything his non-stop red baiting was a typical fascist tactic directed at me.
Whatever. I’m done wasting time with Just The FOX(R).
George,
Speaking of parrots...again. Nice cut and paste...again. Now you have become another waste of time...again. Just The FOX(R) will read your clippings. Goodbye to you.
Dubya, you are better than this name calling.
“JTF, Same old squawk. How are you different from a parrot? Fascists always loved calling liberals commies, you know. Not only does it make it easier to hate liberals, it's easier than debating with documented facts and reason. How are you different from a fascist? You've shown us your similarity.
George,
Speaking of parrots. Nice cut and paste. It's much more simple than thinking of what to write, isn't it? Who's words are they anyway? Some greedhead, no doubt. Maybe that's Rush. You love Rush, don't you? Poor Rush. He can't afford to pay another dime in taxes. How could he afford to eat?”
George made an interesting point whether the words were his or not. JTF asked a reasonable question. He even stated that he wasn’t trying to be a smart ass but rather wanted to know what the difference was between what you are advocating and the Marxist slogan. I too would like to know, because maybe I am missing the difference too. Responding with ad hominem attacks because you don’t have or don’t want to give an answer is beneath you, my friend. I respect your debating abilities and indeed we agree on some important issues, but you lost it on this point, sir.
The difference between the two points is this, sir. JTF asked, I believe sincerely, what the difference is between wealth redistribution as desired by the progressives in America today and the slogan based on Marxism. He gave you a concrete example in his question accordingly. You take offense at it because you think he is calling you a commie and then retort that he supports fascism without giving an example of why you think this is so of him. If JTF wasn’t sincere in his asking of the question, then I would sincerely like to repeat the same question because I don’t really understand the difference either. If there is a difference, then all well and good. Please enlighten me accordingly. If there isn’t a real difference, but you think that is the most fair way to govern, that is also fine.
Heathen says,
In my mind, a flat tax is the only truly way to ensure everyone pays their fair share, but by saying that I've probably thrown Mr. Myste into a rage.
Heathen’s opinion on flat tax, as well as Weasel’s, it would seem, irritates me to know end. It is more egregious for Heathen, however, as I have crushed him in debate on this issue a number of times.
I would love to defend my position for the umpteenth time, but I don’t have the time and really it is a philosophical question. I will say, in short, the tax burden is more when those paying it feel the burden of paying it more. The mistake in the thinking of flat taxers is that the tax burden is measurable in dollars. The tax amount received by the government is dollars. The tax burden can only logically be measured in opportunity cost (economics term. Look it up) for those dollars. If flat tax advocates understood this fact, then I and they could probably agree on some form of taxation. So long as this fact eludes them, we are not speaking the same language.
"Michael Stivic".
Looks like we have a meathead troll. A little more imaginative than a cut and paste troll, but very much a troll.
I do love your sense of humor John, as well as your determination to simply declare yourself the winner of a debate. I'll need to try that tactic myself.
And a heads-up, the phrase "look it up" is a sure sign of someone who is losing a debate and the last refuge of lazy debaters, second only to posting uncredited You Tube links as a comment.
Heathen,
"Look it up" is not indicative of a debate loss or debate victory, as I know you know already. Granted, it may be a sign of laziness / weariness.
Secondly, you cannot lose a debate you just entered before any rebuttal is made.
Thirdly, thanks for the love.
I will say, in short, the tax burden is more when those paying it feel the burden of paying it more.
Why would you want someone to feed burdened? All this talk of shared sacrifice and burdens and what-not sounds like a Russian WWII speech. We're talking about taxes, not throwing the Nazis out of Stalingrad. Just more alarmism in politics. We have plenty of burdens in America, I'm for making fewer of them.
So long as this fact eludes them, we are not speaking the same language.
It's not that the idea isn't understood, we've simply rejected the whole premise. 10% is 10%, its fair. Of course that seems exactly why you don't like it... you're out there hoping to burden people with the weight of government after all. If that's your goal, only the current tax system will do... and more of it.
TP,
I will respond to your comment, since you are unlike a troll who offers no information, only distractions, adds nothing as an individual, refuses to recognize my points when I do respond, and demands attention like a whiny brat. I understand your need to defend Just The FOX(R). You are a better communicator.
First, you are incorrect. I did not respond to him with ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack would be if I called him a Nazi, and he is not a Nazi. Telling someone they share a fascist characteristic with their red-baiting is not an ad hominum attack at all. In fact he was insinuating I shared a characteristic with communists with, “How is your support of increasing taxes on those who can afford it any different than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? But did I go crying about someone “going Nazi on me” or “going Commie on me”? No, I respectfully showed him the Constitutional support for my point, which he promptly ignored and pressed on with his desire to attach a Marxist slogan to my thinking.
What is the point of pressing with the Marxist slogan? What is the reason for introducing it in our discussion? Righties are obsessed with comparing us and even accusing us of being communists. There’s a long history of it. I provided him with the Constitutional basis for my thinking, clearly showing him words like tax, regulate, and general welfare. And these concepts are socialistic, not communistic. I don’t have time to “educate” the differences to those who don’t care, and who want to believe taxing for the general welfare is communism, and believe Corporatist Republicanism is better than democracy. I’ve yet to see a “conservative” tell me the difference between Republicanism and greed. And I don’t need to waste someone’s time repeatedly insisting on an answer.
Even though you also betray an intent to attach liberals to communist ideology with “wealth redistribution as desired by the progressives in America today and the slogan based on Marxism” I’ll give you an answer, even as you steadfastly ignore the fact of the real wealth redistribution over that last three decades. It has been upward to those who not only have the most “free speech”, influence on public policy, and lowest tax rates they’ve seen in a lifetime, but are basking in greater wealth as our country’s public needs and infrastructure suffer from less and less revenue allocations. We see the elites’ idea of taxes and paying a “fair share” is zero. That leaves it up to representatives of we the people to decide their tax rate, that is, if we the people have any representation left at all after the “free speech” money works its influence.
Since you are not a troll, I’ll tell you the difference. “Share the wealth” is an altruistic concept for a healthy society. The Marxist slogan is one suggestion intended to realize that concept. Others would be “We’re all Americans” and “We are in this together”. I prefer the Constitutional suggestion to tax and regulate commerce for the general welfare.
As far as idiot trolls who will not in good faith form their own words for a discussion, I have no time to jump through their cut and paste hoops. In fact, I would be the idiot if I did so. Wouldn’t you agree?
10% is 10%. How can you argue with that? However, a 10% tax on a billionaire is not the same in fairness as 10% tax on me. My choices for food, medicine, housing, and transportation are affected by my 10% far more than a billionaire’s choices for the same necessities would be.
Even a billionaire would agree.
Free,
You say 10% is 10%, its fair. Of course that seems exactly why you don't like it... and at the same time you say you understand, yet reject the premise. There is no such thing as a ten percent burden measured in dollars. You have proven exactly what I said, that you do not understand the premise at all. Again, you have proven that we are not speaking the same language.
This is a huge topic and I sincerely wish I had more time to revive it; perhaps I could come up with some relevant Bible Scriptures or bad poetry, but thus saith I, there is no more time, not even for a rhyme.
John and Dave, I'd like you to get more specific with regard to taxes. I think I understand your basic premise, and while I disagree with it, I'd like to understand it better. Let me restate it and you tell me if I have it wrong.
You're saying that a flat tax is not fair because someone making $20k paying 10% in taxes feels the hit much more than someone making $200k paying 10%. A much larger share of the $20k goes to basic necessities. Your proposal is that the person making $200k must pay a larger percentage of taxes until they feel an equal hit to their wallet as that of the $20k earner.
Assuming I've restated it properly and we're all speaking the same language, I'd like you to try and get more specific. How much more, in percentages, does the person making $200k need to pay in order to feel as much pain? In other words, what would the tax brackets look like in your perfect world?
HR,
A 10% tax on a billionaire is not the same in fairness as a 10% tax on me. My choices for food, medicine, housing, and transportation are affected by my 10% far more than a billionaire’s choices for the same necessities would be.
Before we can proceed, I’d like to know if you agree with this concept. If you do not, then perhaps you have no notion of fairness, and debating “fairness” would be a futile discussion across a language barrier. I’ve already suggested restoring taxes to mid-Reagan era levels. That would be an increase for me and for the top bracket. We either require shared sacrifice or we don’t, right? As it is, we are headed for even more tax breaks for the elites at the expense of mass austerity for the rest of us, thanks to corporate personhood and money as free speech.
In my perfect world, Exxon Mobile would pay more taxes than I do. I’m pretty sure they avail themselves to public services, the legal system, and infrastructure at a much greater level than I do. I bet if I had the “right of free speech” that spent $5.7 million in campaign contributions over the last ten years and $138 million in lobbying, I’d pay zero taxes too. And maybe I’d even get a rebate of $156 million.
Ah, but I am only a person, a mere single, individual, living, breathing person among persons comprising “We the People” who is not entitled to the same free speech rights and representation as Exxon Mobile. And Constitutional rights are an entitlement, not a privilege.
But what do I know? We’re just a bunch of America-hating commies because we see the active suppression of democracy, a system rigged in favor of big money, and a corrupt government that needs a Constitutional change.
This is the system of Corportist Republcanism. It is killing democracy, destroying our economy, and allowing our infrastructure to collapse and fail.
What is your suggestion as an alternative, or do want to "conserve" what we have since the elites are quite happy with the trickle up wealth?
Dave,
What do I have to do to not be called a troll by you?
Stop asking questions that make you think about what you believe?
You said that "I prefer the Constitutional suggestion to tax and regulate commerce for the general welfare."..
Explain how you believe this means share the wealth or spread the wealth around? Until income tax how did the federal govt raise income, through the selling of federal lands, not taking from the citizens money that they had earned.
Share the wealth/tax the rich, may sound like just an "altruistic concept" but I disagree that it is one for a healthy nation as you state.
Further, to then say that quote by Marx is just one suggestion to realize that concept as are "all Americans or in this together" is to gloss over the fact that the Constitution does not support the taking from one and giving to another. That is rather new concept that started with the Wilson administration during WWI.
The quote of Marx is dated 1875 almost 100 years after the Constitution being written. To hold that the Constitution was socialist in it concept due to Section 8 and then use the Marx quote to support that position is to ridicule the reason for the revolution against rule of a non responsive centralized gov. that existed under King George of England.
In closing while I never called you a commie, you did call me a fascist in your post of July23 at 9:55a.m. To which I responded at July 23, 2011 1:33 PM, asking for you help n understanding your position. At July 23, 2011 4:36 PM I asked a question not mentioning Marx's name to which you answer that I was a fascist with your post at July 23, 2011 6:25 PM.
Then at July 23, 2011 7:29 PM I asked why you were going Nazi on me with your answers to which you answer with this:
"OK, now you’re wasting my time. You have nothing to add, recognize none of my points, and you are demanding attention like a whiny brat.
Why don’t you tell us something we don’t know, for a change?
Now you're asking me to "educate" you. It’s too late for that."
Up to that time, what points had you made in response to my question? I wasn't looking for points I was looking for answers,which you finally give with this post of July 24, 2011 11:36 AM.
Thank you for your answer finally!
HOWEVER, I BELIEVE YOU ARE WRONG IN YOUR STATED BELIEF THAT THE CONSTITUTION SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF SHARING THE WEALTH, SPREADING THE WEALTH AROUND AND FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.
A 10% tax on a billionaire is not the same in fairness as a 10% tax on me. My choices for food, medicine, housing, and transportation are affected by my 10% far more than a billionaire’s choices for the same necessities would be. Before we can proceed, I’d like to know if you agree with this concept.
Just so we're clear, Dave, you're refusing to answer my question until I first stipulate to your definition of fairness, when defining fairness is the entire purpose of the conversation.
I'm not going to give you the simple answer you're looking for, and I don't think we can advance the discussion if you or John are unwilling to offer specifics. But I'll offer a few thoughts.
There are objective and subjective measures of fairness and equality. Objectively, I think a flat tax is the only "equal" tax rate, and I think that's definitional. That's something John won't concede to, and I suspect you will not either. The preceding sentences should not be interpreted to mean that I think the only "fair" tax rate is a flat tax, although that is how John likes to characterize my position. I am prepared to accept some level of progressive taxation, a standard deduction being just one example.
Subjectively, I can agree that it is "fair" to ask billionaires to pay a disproportionately high amount of taxes, but I'd like to understand how much more you think is fair. For example, I believe there are immoral rates of taxation, so a tax rate on billionaires that exceeds 50% is immoral, in my opinion. If you were to propose 10% at the bottom and 33% at the top, I could be persuaded that that's "fair."
I'm specifically talking about personal income taxes, so I have no interest debating Exxon Mobile... perhaps another day. But when you say you would like to restore mid-Reagan era tax rates, I assume you're talking about 1983-86 rates: 11/13/15/17/19/23/26/30/35/40/44/48/50. Pesonally, I prefer 1988-90 rates of 15/28.
Righties are obsessed with comparing us and even accusing us of being communists.
Some of you ARE communists. Most of you are socialists in the vein of say... Norway or Sweden or something. But if the shoe fits... WEAR IT. As for we being Nazis, the Nazi party controlled from the top down the German economy... hardly the free market approach we advocate.
And as for a 10% tax, it is fair. I promise 10% of 10k is a lot less than 10% of 10 billion. It's a very progressive tax by nature.
In my perfect world, Exxon Mobile would pay more taxes than I do.
I promise that if they paid only 5%on corporate income in taxes and you paid 100%, they'd still pay tens of millions more in taxes than you do.
It's not worth talking about this with you. It's clear our goals are to fairly and equitably fund the government, and your goal is class warfare. We surely don't have the same goals, so we'll never agree on a path. Ever. Your ideas are based on envy and vengence, not logic, equality and reason.
JTF,
That’s a little better. You’ve learned to acknowledge the words of others, but still lack in comprehension, as nowhere did I ever say “share the wealth” or the Marx slogan. Did I? You brought those to me.
Constitution does not support the taking from one and giving to another.
I quoted you the text in the Constitution that provides for debt and taxes and regulation of commerce. Taxes are money taken from people to pay government debt to other people. It is exactly “taking from one and giving to another”. I also mentioned the Constitutional authority to “promote the general welfare”.
By the way, our Revolution was partly funded by a slave tax. Talk about “taking from one and giving to another”.
Only by your misreading of what I wrote can you find me calling you a fascist. I said, “You portray the Rightist mentality, which is similar to the fascist mentality as well, towards liberals with your eagerness to compare us to Communists.” Did you not try to ascribe a Marxist slogan to my view? It sure looked like you were assigning me a similarity to a communist: This implies that in your mind govt exists to take care of people by taking from some and giving to others. It's a modification of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in 1875.
See, if you think I called you a fascist, you called me a commie first. You are confused, and I still don’t think you know the difference between socialism and communism.
You may scream your falsehood as loud as you like, “HOWEVER, I BELIEVE YOU ARE WRONG IN YOUR STATED BELIEF THAT THE CONSTITUTION SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF SHARING THE WEALTH, SPREADING THE WEALTH AROUND AND FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.”
Nowhere have I written that “stated belief”. I did write about Constitutional authority to “promote the general welfare”. I guess that sorta pops your gourd.
HR,
I actually answered your question in a previous thread before you asked it here. I’m glad you do have a notion of fairness. At least my preference for mid-Reagan era taxes falls short, albeit closely as possible, of being immoral in your opinion. Anyway, we have our respective concepts of what’s fair. Whatever rates are used, the wealthy will cry the loudest of being treated unfairly if history is any clue. Too many of them believe “zero” is the only fair tax. What I think would be “fair” to say is, even a 75% tax on a billionaire would result in no real suffering or privation, and our country would be the better for it. I see that as not even in the same ball park as the immorality of war based on falsehoods, torture, detention without charge or counsel, and warrantless surveillance of US citizens.
Free,
And some of you are fascists. Believe it or not there are real American Nazis on the far Right. They like to hate people just like you do, maybe even more.
How’s that free market thingy workin out fur us? Oh, that’s right. It really isn’t a free market. It is dominated from the top down by the nexus of corporate government. Just like fascism, really. And you tell me, “Your goal is class warfare”? Right. That is precisely what the aristocrats call it when the people on the losing end start to speak out and resist the enemies of democracy.
No Dave I did not claim you said share the wealth, I asked you to tell me the difference as a liberal between that statement and Marx's statement.
Re your quote: "I prefer the Constitutional suggestion to tax and regulate COMMERCE for the general welfare."
It's COMMERCE Dave, not personal income. American's income to run the Federal Govt. up until Wilson was mainly from the sale of land, whiskey taxes, and tariffs on imports (yes slavery was taxed but was it after the Revolutionary War?). That is why in an earlier post about the flat tax idea I asked what rate would work for Corporations. Since it is COMMERCE that is noted in your quote from the Constitution.
I still am in shock that you have taken a question as simple as mine to vent as much as you have to the point of becoming personal. I just don't understand why liberals when asked a question explode like they do. It's not like I asked to see your birth certificate.(JOKE, Attempt at humor)
JTF,
First of all nobody exploded. (Unless using all caps is exploding, then you did.)
Second, its not that you love to ask, way more than answer, questions.
You don't get do you?
Let me educate you.
Every radical Rightie has to insinuate communism into any issue with a liberal. Never fails. You see, the deal is you get to say Marx, Marx, commie, commie, etc., and when we tire of the BS and say fascist, you guys always prove you're better at dishing it out than taking it. You get angry and use all caps and whine about how its not fair to compare the far Right with fascism, while you obsess with comparing us to commies.
I never mentioned the word Nazi. No, you had to cry something about "go Nazi" on someone. Really, to "go Nazi" on someone. That sounds like starting wars, or detaining without charges, or wiretapping without court orders. To "Go Nazi" sounds more like torture and stuff you guys like, not what I would do.
Heck, I couldn't even "go commie" on you. I detest one party rule.
The worst I could do is "Go socialist" on you and let you have social security and health care.
Look, I can compare you guys to fascists all day long, and you can compare me to commies all day long.
One fact is clear. Your side openly opposes democracy. My side defends it.
There's your bottom line.
How’s that free market thingy workin out fur us?
Lets try it and find out? Certainly this isn't it. When the government decides whose to big to fail, and hands out subsidy to every company and citizen you don't have a free market... but it does look a lot like national socialism... minus the racial idiology. And while I'm not on the right, I do know them. I haven't met any Nazis on the right, I've met my share of commies on the left.
Every radical Rightie has to insinuate communism into any issue with a liberal.
Well when you're preaching it or its western european cousin, it's hard not to. Just because you call socialism by a different name, doesn't make it not so. A rose by any other name after all...
Your side openly opposes democracy. My side defends it.
You're the one advocating THE STATE confiscating more money from people. If that's your definition of "democracy" you can have it. Then again, that's what Stalin called it too.
Dave,
Just in closing, in reading your post it sounds to me that you assume an awful lot about a poster.
"Second, its not that you love to ask, way more than answer, questions.
You don't get do you?"
Sorry Dave but that makes no sense.
"Every radical Rightie has to insinuate communism into any issue with a liberal. Never fails."
Again, an assumption on your part because of a question that did not call you anything, you sir jumped to conclusion that you were being called a "commie".
"To "Go Nazi" sounds more like torture and stuff you guys like, not what I would do."
Another generalization by the left.
Finally, since I am rather new to blogs,in the short time I have read and posted on them, it has become clear to me the the left in American has a very thin skin.
@Heathen (AND DAVE!!!!)
You're saying that a flat tax is not fair because someone making $20k paying 10% in taxes feels the hit much more than someone making $200k paying 10%. A much larger share of the $20k goes to basic necessities. Your proposal is that the person making $200k must pay a larger percentage of taxes until they feel an equal hit to their wallet as that of the $20k earner.
That is not what I say, nor do I agree with it. I say that the tax burden is far greater on the poorer fellow and he should have to pay less. I do not say we should enforce equality of results, as that is a conservative invention that liberals don’t embrace, as I have explained to you many times. I don’t think you are capable of understanding the argument, because you continually attach conservative straw men to it.
Assuming I've restated it properly and we're all speaking the same language, I'd like you to try and get more specific. How much more, in percentages, does the person making $200k need to pay in order to feel as much pain? In other words, what would the tax brackets look like in your perfect world? This question is ridiculous. There is a difference between paying for food and medicine and housing and paying taxes on disposable income. The burdens do not share the same universe. I think this distinction is completely beyond your comprehension. I have explained this to you so many times, yet you continue to mischaracterize it.
If we need X dollars in revenue and we are not getting it, we cannot get it from those who don’t have it or will not survive if we get it from the them. We cannot justly try. Destroying the less fortunate does not ultimately increase revenue for the government. It just destroys the less fortunate.
@Dave,
Giving Heathen numbers, saying, for instance, we should restore the top marginal rate to perhaps 40%, is pointless. There is a more elementary principle he does not understand. Trying to give more advanced specifics before he understands the abc’s will only confuse him more. He will use his misunderstanding of the basics to further debate the specifics that were based on them. It is the wrong course. If he cannot understand the basics, any rational discussion cannot follow, as at that point we are not speaking the same language.
Free,
Throw in corporate personhood and add their money as free speech, and what you describe is Corporatist Republicanism. The public benefits and safety nets will shrink and infrastructure will collapse while big money consolidates all wealth and political power. Democracy dies.
You’re the authority on conflating communism and socialism. Not the same. One has democracy the other does not. You and the crazy John Birchers see commies everywhere. To you, anyone to the left of Dick Cheney is a communist. ;-)
But as I noted, you must do what you must do. You said I was “preaching it”, like Stalin, too apparently.
JTF,
As I said. Every radical Rightie has to insinuate communism into any issue with a liberal.
Thanks Free. See? .”Well when you're preaching it...” and again, that's what Stalin called it too.
I rest my case.
Next we see another favorite tactic of the Right’s. The radical Right needs to add distraction to their dishonesty. Since I and most Americans think the Rich should go back to previous tax rates he gets hostile and mischaracterizes Constitutional taxation in a democracy as how “Stalin called it”. Quite dishonest and distracting.
But make no mistake; contempt for a real representative democracy of the people is at the core of his beliefs. He defends plutocratic corporate governance. It’s just taxes he hates.
You’re missing the whole point now, JTF. I never said you “called” me anything. I never called you anything. You insinuated communism, whether you are conscious of it or not. I think it is a subconscious mechanism of the Right Wing indoctrination machine. All your heroes from Beck to Limbaugh harp on the commie/liberal lie. But you’re new at this. You might just find a smoother way to insert an imaginary link between liberals and communists.
So you can plainly see, thanks to our friend, Free, we get that commie crap all the time. Can you blame me for seeing a pattern?
Thanks guys. It’s been fun. Corporatist Republicanism must be defeated by We the People. Long Live Democracy! Long live our Bill of Rights!
John,
You have a point. Our language finds meaning in, "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society".
Obviously this is not understood by the Rightist mind.
John, I think you're simply incapable of translating your ideology into real-world terms. What good is paying for food and medicine, taxes on disposable income, our financial burdens, and opportunity cost when you're unable to communicate specific changes that you would bring about to create John Myste's vision of the world?
I'm seriously considering that you're hiding behind high concepts so that you don't have to commit to anything concrete. I wonder why you're so intent on avoiding answering simple and straightforward questions.
If you're so sure I don't get it, the idea must not be important enough to explain again (or you're too petulant to try). There is a point when, if the student doesn't understand the material, you have to blame the teacher.
@Heathen,
I have given you specifics. You said you supported moving to a flat tax system. I said we should not. I said I prefer a progressive tax system in the interest of fairness, meaning that the lower income Americans don't have to bear the true burden (I know you don't know what I mean by burden. There is nothing I can do about that).
So, one plan is to NOT MOVE TO A FLAT TAX SYSTEM.
That would keep us on the plan we have now, which I have stated I think is a better choice.
It is not the best choice. I think the top marginal rates should be raised. I also think that the long term capital gains should be taxed as income.
There are other things I think also, but moving on to still more specifics is pointless when we are not using the same vocabulary. It is foolish wheel-spinning. It is like if I say I think ooglets are very benevolent and beautiful and you argue that they are hideous and unfair and neither of us agrees about what an ooglet is. The real question is not how good ooglets are. That question is meaningless until Heathen understands what an ooglet is.
Why should I argue with you about who should bear how much tax burden when you think burden equates to a dollar figure? It doesn’t interest me. Let’s talk about ooglets.
@Heathen,
You are asking for pragmatic details about a philosophical disagreement. The reason the details of our plans would differ is because our philosophy differs. The details are nothing more than the natural rational result of a disparity in philosophy? Do you understand this? The question is philosophical.
"Do you understand this? The question is philosophical."
Oh, philosophical! Thanks for clearing that up you condescending SOB.
That's simply a cop out. You see, John, for the rest of us, philosophy guides our view of the real world. We're debating how our various political philosophies would address "shared sacrifice" in terms of tax rates. You're obviously an exception, so you can exclude yourself from the rest of the conversation since your philosophy has nothing to do with addressing real world issues.
You’re the authority on conflating communism and socialism.
Most of you guys are clones of the British Labor Party, and own that type of socialism. However, the Van Jones type "workers of the world unite" hard core are out there, going to their International Answer meetings making you all look worse than the David Atlee clones like Obama are. If you don't like the label, change your thinking, don't cry to me when it's called as it's seen.
But make no mistake; contempt for a real representative democracy of the people is at the core of his beliefs
Okay, which one of us is arguing for an increase in State power here? That would be you. I'm the one arguing for fewer laws, fewer taxes, fewer regulations, and fewer government powers.
@Heathen,
SOB is a little harsh among friends, but I will heal in time.
Anyway, trying to find a solution that handles our philosophy of the fairness of burden without understanding what we mean when we say burden or why makes no sense. If trying to solve the deficit crisis fairly is our concern, we must first understand the philosophy. If trying to solve the deficit crisis without regard to fairness is our concern, then you are correct, our philosophy of fairness and burden are irrelevant.
However, I don't see how you can exclude what is fair while trying to decide who pays how much taxes (or if those taxes should be flat taxes or progressive taxes). It would seem the question is philosophical. I guess we are still arguing over oogles.
If I came across as condescending, I apologize. I did not mean to offend anyone, and certainly not a fellow atheist/agnostic.
Free,
I oppose the power of government that builds a police state and expands empire. You can't wrap your head around the fact that I value both freedom and democracy.
This is why you need to create a false, "other" anti-American tag on someone like me.
You are under the delusion that corporate power superior to that of the state would be benevolent. There’s no Bill of Rights under corporatocracy. No democracy. There would be no legal power over big money to enforce our rights. They already bought up most of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. You corporatist neocon libertarians are the naive ones, wrapped in an ideology blind to the corruption and power of untaxed wealth and unregulated corporatocracy. You claim to support freedom, yet are blind to the forces that suppress freedom. You call Constitutional taxation, safety nets, and public health tyranny, as you support permanent war and the corrupt power that is destroying our rights to democratic representation and drowning out our free speech.
You need to attach a negative label to me because you think I want to expand state power. What would you call Bush/Cheney/Obama unitary executive usurpations? Not my ideas of a free democratic republic.
I want to preserve public programs and restore previous tax rates on the elite, since they own the politicians anyway. I assert the rights of free speech and democratic representation of the people are drowned out by corporate artificial personhood and money as free speech.
That's "communism" to only the most radical deranged thinking. It is in accordance with the thinking of Thomas Jefferson, not Stalin.
Once more, the words of our fellow “commie” Thomas Jefferson, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Look at how much "better" our country has become since Reagan corporatized the government.
There’s your Big Lie.
Dave, when Heathen Republican replied to my earlier inquiry "...does that allow a minority to make decisions allowing the violation of the rights of the majority?", with "...you're agreeing with Dave's earlier statement that the rich and powerful run our government. This goes back a couple of posts on corporate speech and corporate money... I just don't see it and haven't seen the evidence.", I thought, how can he not see it? How is it possible that he can't see this happening?
But then I realized, my eyes weren't opened until 2002. But, once they were, it was so easy to see. It was as obvious as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face. Now, if I don't see concrete evidence, at least the tell-tale signs are there. Like Durante's nose, I may not see it plainly, but the shadow it casts is unmistakable.
To each, there own time.
Excuse me...to each, their own time.
But I must express my heartfelt gratitude to The Heathen Republican for providing me the best response, possible, when confronted by those who laud and praise the virtues of unregulated laissez-faire free markets...
"I just don't see it and haven't seen the evidence."
Thank you, sir...
Just as long as you don't claim that I have advocated for "unregulated laissez-faire free markets" because I haven't and I wouldn't.
I'd prefer all quotes and citations of my work include my full name, The Heathen Republican, as well as a link to my site: http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com.
JG,
It's difficult to blame people for not understanding who is behind political power. Corporate media and the political elites are quite adept at promoting the illusion of democracy. "We have elections, right?"
Right, so do dictators, and so did the Communist bloc.
Ike's warning of the Military Industrial Complex was the tip of the iceberg.
We'll never have democracy until corporate personhood and free speech money are eradicated from their influence on the levers of power. People are waking up. But the politicians won’t listen to the people speaking, because all that free speech money is all they “hear”.
The bottom line for democracy is threefold:
Corporate personhood must be rescinded. Money given to politicians must not be sanctioned as free speech. Public elections must be publicly funded.
Only by amending the Constitution can we reverse the judicial travesties that stripped democracy from the people.
There is NO police state Dubya, quit being so dramatic. As for as any oppression going on, if there is any it comes from out government abusing the money they force us to pay. I've yet to have a corporation make me do anything I didn't want to do... and neither have you. Grow up.
And start making sense while you're at it. In one breath you're telling us how the "Evil Corporations Maaaan" are taking over the government, and in the very next you're telling us all to make the government bigger and stronger. WTF? That doesn't make any sense.
"Yeah, these corporations are super bad maaan, and they use the government to screw us over dude. So you know what we should do maaan... GIVE THE GOVERNMENT TONS OF CONTROL OVER PEOPLE AND LOTS OF MONEY. Yeah."
Seriously, I think you fryed your boomer brain at woodstock.
Free! Shame on you! That's not nice! (Particularly because it is hard to type this when I am laughing my ass off!)
Free,
Now there you go again with the hysterical “Taxes on the rich are oppression” fanaticism. You act like taxes are higher than ever when in fact they are lower than you can remember.
Anyone who cannot see the slippery slope of torture, rendition, incarceration without charges or counsel, warrantless surveillance, and other autocratic tools cemented into policy by Bush/Obama is not paying attention. No, we are not all subject to the Midnight Knock on our door...yet. But thanks to the “drug war” and “war on terror” they don’t need to knock on the door before they bash it down and start shooting. There are growing cases of innocent victims of such militarist police state tactics. These often occur after false tips are coerced from snitches.
Innocent people are dead from that crap.
If they can redefine our First Amendment free speech rights as corporate cash, they can dilute any of our freedoms. I bet you'd be fist in line to whine about the "Obama wants to take our guns" nonsense.
Your ignorance is frightening.
Wake up.
TP,
I am pleased you have a sense of humor. Really. Or maybe I just say that because you like my jokes too. ;-)
You act like taxes are higher than ever when in fact they are lower than you can remember.
And they are still too high. On the people who actually pay them that is, 50% of Americans don't pay ANY and you know what... shockingly most of them are the ones crying for other people to PAY MORE so said 50% of free loaders and looters can do even less work than they do now. You know what I say? Get a haircut and get a real job hippie.
. No, we are not all subject to the Midnight Knock on our door...yet.
I got some tin foil if you need to make a hat or something?
There are growing cases of innocent victims of such militarist police state tactics.
No there aren't. Law enforcement acts largely like it always has. They kicked doors during prohibition under your favorite president FDR and they're doing it again today. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Well, except back then cops could beat you half to death and hold you without trial without the ACLU suing them, could racially profile blacks and segregate them, and were active members of the KKK. Some police state. Your made up nightmare sounds like the FDR administration, not America today.
I bet you'd be fist in line to whine about the "Obama wants to take our guns" nonsense.
I'd like to see him try. We bitter clingers all tend to join the military. What's he going to confiscate them with?
Dave, I've said this on many occasions: Our democracy is only a veneer covering the rotting corruption of plutocracy (or, as you coined, "Corporatist Republicanism"). It's for show, only, as the system is rigged and manipulated throughout.
As Daniel Berrigan, the activist American Catholic priest quoted his brother Phillip as saying, "If elections meant anything, they'd declare them illegal."
The Heathen Republican, despite the Internet still being, for all practical purposes, open-source, I'll comply with your wishes. ;-)
You also said...
"I'd prefer all quotes and citations of my work include my full name, The Heathen Republican..."
Gee, you must have been teased in school...
Free0352, you said...
"What's he going to confiscate them with?"
Why, the highest bidder, who else? Money talks. I'm sure Xe Services could be bought...easily...to take your blessed guns.
Like I said awhile ago, you're scary. But, so are the criminally insane. Convince me there's a difference.
If you can...
Free,
Taxes are “Still too high!” you cry for your beloved and revered elites.
Yeah, yeah, we know. Zero is the tax rate that is just exactly perfect.
I see you ignored my primary slippery slope points.
Law enforcement acts largely like it always has.
Like police state thugs?
They still want to act above the law way too often, and they are far more militarized than before.
What's he going to confiscate them with?
Well, he won't. But intimidation by authorities, with the force of many obedient "Good Germans" and soldiers, and mercenaries will.
History has shown us that much.
Just like it has shown us, “First they came for the socialists”. Or communists, then trade unionists, etc.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
At what point would you disobey an order, Mein Herr?
You don’t have to answer that. You are an obedient authoritarian.
Too bad you couldn’t have gone to Woodstock and known peace and brotherhood are also human qualities, for a change.
I'm sure Xe Services could be bought...easily
Probably not, because even if they weren't gun owners themselves and against the whole idea, there are at there height of power 5300 of them. Now it's more like, about 1200. Yeah, I'm quaking. But I know those guys, and they'd be on the pro gun side. In fact they hate the ATF, who constantly fucks with them.
Zero is the tax rate that is just exactly perfect.
I was thinking more along the lines of a 12% national sales tax with no deductions... but zero is better than what we have now yes. If that's the number you want to go with, fine. We currently take in about 200 billion a month give or take... I think that is plenty.
I see you ignored my primary slippery slope points
All government is a slippery slope.
They still want to act above the law way too often,
Sometimes, but it's hardly a new phenomenon. Try living in a foreign country, the German Polizi or French Police for example make ours look like Teddy bears... and the Japanese police are down right brutal. Compared to other countries our cops aren't so bad.
and they are far more militarized than before.
Maybe they like to think so - or you. In truth, the cops pulling you over are MUCH nicer than the Army, and operate much differently. That's something I'd know about btw.
But intimidation by authorities, with the force of many obedient "Good Germans" and soldiers, and mercenaries will.
Please give specific examples of this intimidation policy, how do these events affect your daily life?
Just like it has shown us, “First they came for the socialists”. Or communists, then trade unionists, etc.
Churchill famously said the new fascists will present themselves as anti-fascists. He was talking about socialists. You know, most democrats.
At what point would you disobey an order, Mein Herr?
When it's unlawful, I have a duty to disobey. I did a whole blog post on the very subject.
Too bad you couldn't have gone to Woodstock and known peace and brotherhood are also human qualities, for a change.
The hippie movement was the stupidest thing a very spoiled, nieve and worthless generation came up with. Take a shower, get a job. I hate hippies.
The flat tax and balanced-budget amendment are bogus panaceas. Like locust plagues, they seem to be a force of nature and always come back.
The same people who didn't learn to share their toys as kids and are prone to road rage and shouting "Get off my lawn" as adults really hate the idea of progressive taxation. There's nothing quite like rewarding the rich for being rich and punishing the poor for not being rich to make these people feel all's well with the world.
The rest of us realize that not only is the Robin Hood-in-reverse approach unjust in a civilized society, it's also costly to society and the economy as a whole.
The late Molly Ivins explained the reason why with elegant simplicity: "We all do better when we all do better."
My two cents, I'm all for raising taxes, on the 50% of Americans who do not owe/pay Federal Income taxes when all the accounting is done by April 15th.
Corporations, until the economy recovers, leave them alone. Capital gains tax rates, lower them.
I guess another way to say that Anderson is "the best way to help poor people, is don't be one.". As a protuctive member of society, you are economic stimulus. Welfare queen, spread the wealth around leeches drain on society like parasites. The contribute zero. I don't care if that makes them personal loosers, but I pay taxes and I don't like funding their looserdom, and I wouldn't ask anyone else to either. If you're so into it, you can donate to the irs any time you want. Oh wait, you're just generous with other people's money I forgot. When I was a kid, I saved up my money I earned and bnought my own toys, I didn't mooch off my friends and didn't like those who did. That's the idea I'm operating off of to this day.
Isn't interesting how the producers are "greedy" for not sharing "enough" of THEIR money with the takers?
Talk about not speaking a common language!
Free,
Compared to other countries our cops aren't so bad.
I would hope so, but if you read what I wrote, I wasn’t talking about patrol cops. There are other countries where cops don’t bash in and shoot people in their own homes in the name of a war on drugs.
intimidation policy, how do these events affect your daily life? We were being hypothetical, remember? I have had to stop for “sobriety” and “safety” check points. See war on drugs.
Churchill was an aristocrat born into wealth and privilege. Therefore you must agree with his contempt of lower classes. He hated National Health for those peasants. Dick (Assassination Team) Cheney talking about Islamo-fascism fits Churchill’s point perfectly.
You wrote a very good post on unlawful orders. I admire your respect for the law. Laws change. Posse Comitatus has been overturned. The military will be given police power over civilians. And it won’t be for serving justice. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but it probably will, thanks to your man Bush for paving the way.
One law that didn’t change was waterboarding. It was illegal when Bush ordered it to be done. Obama chose not to investigate the “enhanced interrogators” because they were just “following orders”.
Yes we know of your sociopathic, almost fascistic, hate for “welfare queens” leeches and parasites, and now hippies. So where are all the jobs for them? Your beloved “producers” sent the jobs to China, while sucking up more welfare than all your despised hippies and parasites combined. Why don’t you hate the elite welfare queens? You speak for them and defend them in almost every way.
The difference between me and you is I want the poor to have jobs. You want to punish them.
SW,
As you said, punishing the poor for not being rich
Yes. Thank you.
JTF,
Corporations are doing fine. The economy is taking good care of them. Not so much the rest of us. You guys really do seem to worship wealth and the wealthy.
TP,
Isn’t it quaint how you call aristocrats and Wall Street money men “producers”? Why not “holy infallible revered ones”? Just what have they produced? Just what has any elite produced without the labor of others? You say jobs? Where? Talk about not speaking a common language!
And as with Free, what about the elite corporate welfare queens? You speak for them and defend them in almost every way, even as they send jobs overseas. No greed there, eh? Nosiree, just patriotic, infallible, holy, revered elites dodging taxes like Jesus told them to do. Oh wait, He didn’t. He said very different things about taxes and the rich than you and your fellow wealth worshippers do. He didn’t call them “producers” for one thing.
Welfare for ceo's? Its the only thing I hate more than welfare for welfare queens. You want to cut ALL subsidy for business? Hell yes, where do I sign? Bail outs? Never again says I.
As for where the so called poor can get Jobs? Figure it the fuck out. I don't care. Nessesity is the mother of invention.
Dubya, let me clarify. Producers are those that are not a drain on society. They are the ones working and providing for themselves. They are the ones paying taxes and providing for those that aren't working, sometimes through no fault of their own. I not referring merely to corporate titans like you despise.
A safety net is important. A safety hammock is a disgrace. The implication from the left is that without the government, all of these people will perish.
It was the same when Clinton finally signed the welfare reform bill on the third go around so he wouldn't be crucified. The left screamed about how it was going to hurt the disadvantaged and minorities the hardest.
Instead what it did is help people acquire some dignity and self respect by earning their own way. Oh yeah, it also reduced costs for the tax-payers in funding those societal safety nets to a much lesser degree too. (Not that this is a concern of today's progressives.)
Hell, if the government needs more money, raise taxes on the evil rich which make up the upper 50% of the population. The only problem is that the bottom 50% of the population doesn't pay any damned taxes.
No Dave, we don't love corporations, we just don't hate them.
Free, I want my tax money back from the UAW that was spent bailing their employers out!
Mr. Paine, Hell yes raise taxes on the 50% who pay no income tax now! You want to spread the sacrifice, how about starting there?
What will be posted now is the only reason the rich are rich is because of the Bush taxes cuts and how by their having been able to keep the money they earned, it was not available to give to the poor who don't pay taxes now any way.
What a shell game.
Speaking of shell games, $ 9.1 trillion in debt now and the demos are going bonkers because they may have to cut $ 1.9 trillion over the next TEN years.
Oh the inhumanity of it all! Have they forgotten how payroll taxes have gone up almost 4% to pay for the "Affordable Health Care Act"that will not fulling go into effect until 2014? Sounds logical to me.
BOSTON (TheStreet) -- George Soros, the billionaire hedge-fund manager and philanthropist best known for breaking the Bank of England in 1992, will return capital to investors in order to avoid reporting requirements under the Dodd Frank reform act.
Soros will return money to investors by the end of the year, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, citing two people briefed on the matter. Soros Fund Management will focus on managing assets for his family, according to a letter to the firm's investors. Soros will turn 81 on August 12.
"We wish to express our gratitude to those who chose to invest their capital with Soros Fund Management LLC over the last nearly 40 years," the letter to investors reads, according to the Bloomberg report. "We trust that you have felt well rewarded for your decision over time."
Initial media reports trumpeted the end of Soros' 40-year career as a hedge-fund manager, although the billionaire investor's firm is far from being done. Soros will return less than $1 billion to external investors, a drop in the bucket compared to the firm's total assets of more than $25 billion.
The reason? Under new requirements from the Dodd Frank act, hedge funds are required to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission by March 2012 if the fund continues to manage more than $150 million in assets for outside investors. The new requirements would call for funds to report information about the assets they manage, potential conflicts of interest, and information on investors and employees. The act allows an exemption for what the Commission considers "family office" advisers.
"We have relied until now on other exemptions from registration which allowed outside shareholders whose interests aligned with those of the family investors to remain invested in Quantum," the letter continued, according to the Bloomberg report. "As those other exemptions are no longer available under the new regulations, Soros Fund Management will now complete the transition to a family office that it began eleven years ago."
Wonder why Mr. Soros doesn't want to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission by March 2012? Wonder if he will continue to send millions of dollars into left organizations in America, like Media Matters?
What does he have to hide?
Remember the ten of millions the unions, organizations and corporations spent supporting the "Affordable" Health Care Act? Once passed, how many asked for waivers to be except from the Act?
Wonder what this evil capitalist has to hide, sounds like time for an investigation by Congress and our famed DOJ under Mr Holder.
TP,
At least the Clinton years saw job growth for those people. Bush put a stop to all that. I’ll repeat again, the difference between you and me is I want the poor to have jobs. You want to deprive them of what little they have.
JTF,
Did you know the auto bailouts are being repaid? Did you know Bush was in favor of saving those jobs too. Imagine how worse our economy would be if all the auto workers lost their jobs. You’d have more unemployed people to hate. I guess you’d like that.
Your payroll taxes went UP? Really? Honest? Yeah, I must have “forgotten”. How about you show us?
You and TP gripe about the bottom 50% not paying income tax. Why? Because of the crappy McJobs they are stuck with, if they even have a job. They are NOT PAID ENOUGH INCOME TO TAX. The low wage workers do pay into Social Security and Medicare however.
Yes, tax the poor. No punishment is too severe for them. But restore the 3% on the rich? Why that’s socialism. Your poor billionaires would probably need food stamps after that.
--
Where are the jobs, Boehner? That’s why you were given the House. Did you forget?
What? You never cared about that? You don't represent anyone making less than 250 G’s a year. That explains it.
Did you know the auto bailouts are being repaid?
Not exactly.
Did you know Bush was in favor of saving those jobs too.
You are aware he was a giant douche bag right? The only jobs those bail outs saved, were on the board of directors. Like I said, the only thing that pissed me off worse than welfare for welfare queens, is welfare for CEOs.
Imagine how worse our economy would be if all the auto workers lost their jobs
I think the economy would be better off had it corrected and GM, AIG, Goldman Sachs etc. had gone out of business. Those companies are a drain on the economy. They suck, they deserve to go under because they are managed poorly. That goes for the savings and loans Regan bailed out and the airlines Clinton bailed out. Quit with the socialism, and let prices and the market work. The only person whose done more to kill the free market than George Bush, is Barak Obama.
Yes, tax the poor.
Damn right. Maybe when they have to pay their fair share they'll stop demanding a shot at other people's money. 10% flat tax, hell yeah. And cut that safety hammock up. You call it punishment, I call it pulling your damn weight.
At least the Clinton years saw job growth for those people.
The entire federal budget was about half of what it is today back then. So yes, I say we cut our federal budget by 50% just like back in the good old 90s. In fact, lets cut it by way more, like 65%. 100% of cuts starting in 2011. Game?
If you took the time to read the "Affordable" Health Care Act you would find out what's in it Dave and what it's cost is. That's more than FORMER speak Pelosi did.
Soros's a didn't cry like s stuck pig? B.S.he just pulled out of a regulated market that liberals want and love so much cause it might have make making money for him more difficult. Like other evil corporations do when liberals over regulate them,they leave,or shut down.
Liberals keep talking about taxing the rich millionaires,but as Dave posted, the tax increases they want will go down to income of $250,000.
P.S.I have care about "anybody! I have care about unborn that liberals are ok with their mothers killing them while still in the womb. I have cared so much that when their mothers decide not to murder them, I have been a foster parent until they, (humans, not lumps of flesh) are adopted. Get off your high horse about caring Dave, as long as you support the right to murder a baby in it's mothers womb you do not have an exclusive corner on caring.
Free0352 and Paine, no wonder you're such hard cases. Along with being selfish, you're ignorant.
Most poor people work, some of them at two or more jobs, many of them at the hardest, dirtiest jobs in America. You make them out to be lazy freeloaders. That's so typical of conservative/libertarian/tea party and plain, old-fashioned selfish people without political pretensions, you're only able to process greatly simplified, one-dimensional information, usually only then if what you're minds are processing jibes with the prejudices and stereotypes you prefer to reality.
You both need another country. Somalia would probably suit you well, so go and enjoy freedom from government, taxes, regulation and programs to help people. Just be sure to watch your back.
S.W. Anderson
I'm amazed that you can use the word selfish in response to a post in which the fact is stated that 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax.
I'm amazed that you call the 50% who pay the federal income tax as selfish.
Just for kicks, figure out some time how much tax dollars have been spent since LBJ's Great Society was started. Seems to call this Nation as selfish after spending that amount of money in the war on poverty is more than a bit disingenuous.
After all is said and done, the "poor" need more money from those who provide for them now through the taxes the 50% who pay taxes. Is it possible that the definition of "poor" in American needs to be revisited?
Dubya writes, “I’ll repeat again, the difference between you and me is I want the poor to have jobs. You want to deprive them of what little they have.” I am getting really damned tired of your and especially that condescending blow-hard Anderson’s erroneous assumptions that I want to deprive the poor.
I absolutely want the poor to have jobs and be self sufficient, first of all so they can grow and have some sense of dignity and self respect. Secondly, so they are not a drain on the rest of society.
I responded to just such an asinine comment of Anderson’s made on Jim Marquis’ blog regarding this false accusation too. Rather then reinvent the wheel, I’ll copy and paste my response from there to here as it applies to both Dubya and Anderson accordingly.
Andersons writes on Major Conflict blog, “Where in hell do you get off wanting to punish them (the poor) for not being born into a wealthy family or not getting rich? Because that's exactly what you and your un-Christian, ignorant and thoroughly selfish fellow conservative/libertarian/tea party throwbacks to 19th-century Dickensian hell are after.” Anderson, I have had about enough of your nonsense. First, I have never made any discussion personal with you, despite your intolerance of anyone that doesn’t parrot your exact opinion. Anyone that has the temerity to look at history, economics, and the facts at hand and draw a different conclusion must be a complete idiot in your book it seems.
You evidently have assumed too much and incorrectly in what I have written now and in the past. Let me set the record straight for you, sir. I understand that there are lots of good honest folk that work their tails off at low paying jobs. Believe it or not, I came from a family where my Mom had to depend on food stamps for awhile when my father died when I was twelve. I didn’t come from wealth. We were responsible though. We didn’t spend money on things that weren’t vitally necessary. Mom worked hard, moved up the chain in short order and six months later we no longer had to rely on food stamps. We were still poor, but we were too proud to take that extra government hand-out when we were able to make it on our own. There is NO sense of shame for people today seemingly that can make it on their own but choose to have others (taxpayers) support them instead.
Continued
I was a nuclear engineer in the Navy. When I got out after the first Gulf War, the economy in California sucked and good jobs were scarce. It was a very humbling time for me as for a short time I worked a security job during the day and delivered pizza in the evening to pay my bills. Eventually I got an engineering job in Virginia and moved my family across country, but I did what I had to do to take care of them at the time without expecting the government to take care of me and mine. If that pisses you off, then I think there is something wrong with your mindset.
I don’t have a problem helping the poor that are unable to make ends meet but are working diligently at trying to do so. As far as Moms and Dads both working nowadays, that it typically more because they want “stuff” rather than out of necessity. If people would live within their means instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses, I suspect things would be far better. Mom could stay at home at raise the kids instead of working so that they can have that new BMW and little Johnny can have that X-Box.
And when the time comes to take care of my elderly in-laws, we won’t have the money to add that extra mother-in-law addition either, but we will still have them move in and make do, because that is what families are supposed to do. Nowadays folks would just as soon ship Grandma off to some low rent nursing home rather than be inconvenienced.
After all, the taxpayers will take care of her. Sure she will live in a sh@t hole and have substandard care, but at least she won’t be a hindrance.
Further, your rant about the top 1% having 90% of the wealth is crap. The top 1% do have 20% of the wealth and yet pay 40% of the federal income taxes. Further, your lack of economics understanding is showing. There is not a finite pool of money out there. Just because the evil rich have 20% doesn’t mean that all we have left for the rest of us forever more is 80%. It is not a zero sum game. Wealth can be created when the government is not sucking it out of us. Someone with a good idea, or a strong work ethic can create wealth through industry and perseverance. I guess it isn’t politically correct to teach that nowadays though.
(conclusion)
Next, perhaps I shouldn’t get all worked up, but I take great offense at your characterization of me and my “ilk” as greedy and un-Christian. I have supported a little girl in the Philippines and a little girl in Mexico for years now. I have spent countless hours organizing and even chairing a charity motorcycle ride to raise money for children burn victims at the local university for several years in a row. I have donated my time and money for meals on wheels to take dinner to the sick and elderly. My family has on two occasions taken what we would spend on Christmas presents for each other and put together bags of clothing and toiletries to go and hand them out to the homeless in the parks downtown on Christmas day. My daughter has volunteered with the church youth group to spend her summers helping out the poor at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and also the Blackfoot reservation. My family, when able, is always there at church to volunteer our time or money to help out various people and charities in need.
I HATE talking about this stuff because it sounds as if I have no sense of humility whatsoever, but it pisses me off to no end to be called or implied that because I think that those that are capable should fend for themselves that I must be greedy and un-Christian. I can and should do more, but I bet my efforts to help others beats that of the typical liberal. How about you, Mr. Anderson? What have you done to help the problem other than vote for politicians and policies to confiscate my money so as to have the government do what families and communities should and used to do more of regarding helping others?
I support conservative principles, especially economically, because capitalism when unhindered by all but the most vital government regulation provides the best chance for the most people to live better. THAT is the reason why America’s poor are often better off than the middle class or even sometimes the wealthy of all other nations in the world. Socialism, redistribution of the fruits of one’s labors, and creating a class of dependency in America is not the answer. Education and teaching people some sense of dignity and self esteem through actually working and taking personal responsibility would go much further to eradicating the poor in this country rather than just handing out another damned welfare check.
Do it the former rather than the latter way and you will indeed see us all do better, Mr. Anderson.
...and Mr. Dubya too.
AMEN!
T. Paine says,
I HATE talking about this stuff because it sounds as if I have no sense of humility whatsoever, but it pisses me off to no end to be called or implied that because I think that those that are capable should fend for themselves that I must be greedy and un-Christian.
I apologize for what I am about to say. I realize no one is asking and probably no one is interested in the Myste take on things, but I am going to volunteer it anyway. I have known Mr. Paine for some time now. I HATE his politics. He and I are almost as far apart has you can get on social theory, religion, constitutional law, economic theory. Sometimes in the heat of discussing these things, he seems heartless as he passionately defends his conservative view. Economic conservatism is a theory about how to make the government and the nation work. It idealistically holds that each of us should do his part to make it work (even when that is not possible, but I digress). Conservatism has problems (reality breaks), and they are problems that are deal-breakers for me. However, conservatives do not view the things from the same perspective as I and they do not see the same picture I see. I know this. There are really good people who are conservatives.
I have an enormous amount of respect for T. Paine, and it is only because I know him that my view of conservatives in general is more positive than it used to be. I find his integrity beyond question. Though it may be hard to see from the smoke of a heated debate, I also find him to be as honorable as any passionate liberal blogger on the web. I find him very forgiving of excessive aggression, and, though he does not easily show it, he is very thoughtful of opposing views. You can tell by the way his response sometimes lightens. Rather than concede, he sometimes just fades away. Here, in this den of liberals, you do not easily see the T. Paine I am describing because this is a jungle where survival of the fittest rules. I love this site!
Though I and T. Paine think nothing alike, our differences are slight. If two things happened, we would be inseparable: 1. He needs to change a few core views, because his handling of those views is similar to what mine would be if I had them. For a radical conservative, he is often left-leaning. 2. I need to become a homosexual. Once these two things happen, he is truly someone I could come to love.
[Recognition of T. Paine complete]
Oh, I am pretty sure he will also have to give up God, because that little addiction is just obnoxious.
JTF,
Good for you for foster parenting. If more of the anti-reproductive rights crowd did that there would be fewer abortions. I don’t want to see more abortions despite what you believe.
I’m glad you read the entire "Affordable" Health Care Act. Now you can quote me the text you are referencing.
And you can show us how our payroll tax increased 4%.
I’ll wait.
Free,
We all have our wishes, don’t we? The fact remains we as a nation cannot afford the Bush/Obama tax cuts. IF they made offsets, IF they didn’t increase spending, IF we saw jobs created, and IF they didn’t start wars without end, there would be some sense to it.
Our debt has worsened because those cuts were made during a period of job losses and wars put on the credit card.
TP,
I understand you are not the hateful sociopath Mr. Free likes to portray himself as, but your compassion for the elites appears far more extensive than for the rest of us. Your compassion for others in your immediate world is duly noted and appreciated. Some of us feel a civil and just society would also implement such assistance through public services.
Why is it you so passionately want the wealthy to have more at the expense of others beyond your immediate world? And yes money is a zero sum by most applications. Banks and government can magically create cash, but you and I cannot. Our economy is like a poker game with marked cards and rigged by the dealer. Sure, we all get to play, but the winners are always the winners in a “trickle up” economy.
It is a fact that public services and infrastructure have suffered as a result of tax cuts. There are losers because there are winners and that is due to the zero sum nature of money.
Restoring tax rates and cutting spending is the only sane solution. It is unrealistic and “magical’ to think siphoning more to the top will benefit the rest of us. The Bush tax cuts FAILED to create jobs. They FAILED our country. But Republicans are quite happy about it anyway.
John,
You don't need to be gay to love TP. He's a lovable guy.
We all have our wishes, don’t we? The fact remains we as a nation cannot afford the Bush/Obama tax cuts.
The government gets 200 billion a month in tax revenue. Sure we can, IF we cut back.
200b a month is plenty.
I understand you are not the hateful sociopath Mr. Free likes to portray himself as,
You know us advocates for liberty... little echmans the lot of us!
Your economic ideas are trickle up alright... trickle up poverty!
Anderson-
make them out to be lazy freeloaders.
Only the ones milking the welfare and unemployment. People can't find a job in two years? Seriously? My wife just found one in less than two weeks. You can't fool me with your propaganda. I grew up in Detroit. I grew up arround the welfare queens collecting 60k in benifits a year who'd never worked a job in their lives. Collecting the welfare check, the HUD check, the medicade, the food stamps, the WIC, getting their kids diagnosed with ADD to get SSI. I grew up next to the stores that would illigally sell booze and tabacco for food stamps, or trade them for cash to buy drugs. You are either full. of. crap or totally nieve. It isn't a safety net, it's a safety hammock.
First, while I am humbled and very appreciative of your rushing to my defense, Mr. Myste, you really did NOT just call me a left-leaning radical conservative, did you?!?! I think I am offended all over again! LOL! Further, I’ll have you know that it is my addiction to God and my sense of moral responsibility because of His commandment to love my neighbor as myself that I even bother to try and do the right thing to help others in need. That is not a matter of being left-leaning. That is a matter of trying to walk the talk of my faith. I fall flat on my face more times than not, but I do at least try, sir.
Dubya, you are flat out wrong, my friend, regarding the money being a zero-sum game. If that was the situation, once accounting for inflation, we would have the exact same amount of money now that we had 50, 100, or 200 years ago in our economy. That is not the case. People, businesses, and those “evil” corporations create products and services. They create wealth. The government does not create anything directly and therefore is a consumer of wealth. That pie of wealth, of which you think the rich have an unfair portion thereof, has typically always been growing in size. Even if the richest 1% hold on to their 20% of the income in the country, if that pie doubles in size, we all are eating more pie from the remaining 80% accordingly. The government doesn’t grow that pie; it merely takes more of it away from all of us. Government is a necessary evil, but as Jefferson points out, “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
Oh, and by the way, Free is not the hateful sociopath you assume him to be.
I have read his writings for the better part of two years now and have come to respect and admire him accordingly.
Yes, he does come off as harsh at times, but placed in context, it is understandable and often warranted.
Free and Libertarians of his nature may be many of the things the left hates, but I'll tell you one thing. He can always be counted to step up in defending his and thereby our freedoms and liberties and we will never have to worry about having to provide for him while he is even minimially able to do for himself.
This country used to be full of a lot more Frees. It is to our great disgrace that we are now seemingly more full of takers than we are of the rugged individualists like Free.
(and Mr. Myste has the audacity to call me "left-leaning"!!!) LOL!
Paine,
That's because its not about those that drink the water, but those that carry the water.
Mr. Paine,
I did not call you left-leaning because of your acts of charity. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity probably give to charity. I called you left-leaning because of the centrist statements you carelessly intersperse throughout your conservative drivel.
I believe you are not as logically certain of conservatism as your emotions and FOX instruct you to be.
Dave Dubya, you correctly stated...
"The Bush tax cuts FAILED to create jobs. They FAILED our country. But Republicans are quite happy about it anyway." [emphasis my own]
So true, Dave, so true. The thing that amuses me whenever a conservative is confronted with this fact, is the way they avoid the subject and expertly (in their eyes, anyway) divert the conversation to some other philosophical realm of conservative "principal" or thought. But, they never acknowledge the fact, much less attempt to debate it. It's almost as if one is speaking a foreign language. It's really strange; it's never given a thoughtful and serious response.
No, no DD, you read the entire "Affordable" Health Care Act. Prove I am wrong.
"I don’t want to see more abortions despite what you believe."
Then put your money where your mouth is and become a foster parent. If you really don't want to see more abortions then walk the talk. Easy to say you don't want more but what are you doing to reduce the numbers?
Being a foster parent for a non aborted human being isn't the only thing you could do. If you need links or ideas to help with your stated desire IE: fewer abortions, say the word and I'll post them here.
Just let me know.
"Why is it you so passionately want the wealthy to have more at the expense of others beyond your immediate world."
Dave are you saying that if the wealthy have more that means that others will have less? Explain how that works?
Why do we still have poverty and the poor with all the tax money that has been spent since 1964 with LBJ's Great Society war on poverty through today?
With 50% of the population not paying income taxes, why should any member of that 50% not contributing every April 15th want to become "rich"? Uncle Sam would just take it from them through taxes and give to those who were smart enough to stay "poor".
TP,
It is an over simplistic assertion that I am flat out wrong regarding money being a zero-sum game. If I was flat out wrong there would be no losers when the winners take all. You need to utterly disregard the reality of cuts in public benefits and public infrastructure as part of those losses. You only see the wealthy elite’s side of the coin. Where are those jobs from the Bush tax cuts? Their non-existence indicates a zero sum effect. Can’t you comprehend that the economic system has both non-zero sum and zero sum characteristics? Your absolutism falls short in comprehending a relativist reality.
As for being “flat out wrong” you are exactly that with, “The government doesn’t grow that pie; it merely takes more of it away from all of us.” The opposite is true. They do print more money, and are taxing us at relatively lower rates.
As for Mr. Free, I made no assumptions about his hatred. He has openly admitted to it. You are defending his hate as “understandable and often warranted”. Very un-Christian, wouldn’t you say? Who would Jesus hate?
I admire Free’s defense of freedom and liberty more than you imagine. Libertarians are more in line with my philosophy than the Republican Right. It’s their mutual worship of wealth and support of its dominance of government that separates us.
You and I and Free have just as much interest in defending our freedom and liberty. However, he is no saint for simply being in the military and relishing the deaths of people resisting the invasion and occupation. I totally understand the necessity of his predicament and would probably do the same if I were in it. Only I wouldn’t have put myself in Bush’s crusade for crony profit, political capital and re-election as “war president”. I learned long ago our wars are less about defending freedom than being business as usual.
Killing Iraqis didn’t protect our freedom in any way but in the fantasy of war lovers. But I still have to pay for it, don’t I? You just won’t hear me whine and bitch about paying for that as much you guys whine and bitch about paying for public services. The fact the elites get huge tax cuts and resist sharing in the cost, while often making millions from war profiteering, is where greed comes in. And again, I still have to pay for it, don’t I?
As with public services, logic dictates that the less the elites pay for the wars, the more the rest of us will. Again, there’s a zero sum characteristic for you. They shoved it down our throats. Why shouldn’t they pay for their damned war? Taxing the rich is how a society prospers. As we see, “trickle up” only reverses a society’s well being. Are we all better off after Bush’s tax cuts?
Who is?
Free,
You grew up seeing the worst abuses of the welfare state. For that you want to deprive the truly needy. Nobody here defends such abuse, yet you act like we do. Such is how hate works, I guess.
” That's because its not about those that drink the water, but those that carry the water.
As TP does for you so eagerly.
JG,
Don’t worry, the “Free Market” make everything better. They promise.
JTF,
According to the Washington Post, “An earlier survey from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had found no increase in contraceptive use between 2006 and 2008. At the same time, poor women are the most likely to seek abortions, and a 2008 Guttmacher survey found an increase in the proportion of poor women undergoing the procedure.”
The abortion rate went down with the relative prosperity of the Clinton years. That rate would be falling even more if people had jobs and access to contraception. Why don’t we work on that?
Dave are you saying that if the wealthy have more that means that others will have less? Explain how that works?
The upward redistribution of wealth has resulted in massive unemployment and job losses while the Middle Class is shrinking. Haven’t you noticed?
I’m still waiting on evidence of your tax increase that YOU said happened. You have the assertion to defend, not me, buddy.
You can make it easier if you admit what you said was not true.
I’ll wait...
DD,
What are YOU doing to reduce the numbers of abortions? You paying extra taxes to keep mothers from aborting their child?
Want my ideas and links or are you really not willing to walk the talk?
Just be honest, does it really matter to you or not that with an abortion a life ends without a trial or ability to defend it's self?
Or do you feel the solution is to raise taxes on the 50% of the population who pay all the income taxes now? You know,bring them down to the same level of neediness those who depend on the federal govt for their daily bread? Make the percent who don't pay taxes 65%.
Or did you just say that because you wanted readers to think that you were opened minded?
JTF,
So what was the question, again, please? ;-)
Dave, you sarcastically and correctly observed...
"JG,
Don’t worry, the 'Free Market' [will] make everything better. They promise."
As The Heathen Republican astutely once remarked, "I just don't see it and haven't seen the evidence." ;-)
Jefferson, I know you keep repeating that like some kind of dog whistle for the left, but instead of suggesting that I'm an idiot for not seeing how corporations/the rich and powerful run the government, you could've been inspired to show me the evidence.
If it's so obvious to you, perhaps you can enlighten me.
Time to move to a new string, too many questions that Dave doesn't want to answer on this one.
It is an over simplistic assertion that I am flat out wrong
It's just flat wrong though. As in 2+2=3 wrong. Hard to debate a guy who thinks the above equation is right... you just have to shake your head.
He has openly admitted to it.
Yup, can't stand terrorists and jihadists. So sue me. Why don't you hate them? These people are antithetical to human civilization. Come on Dave, give hate a chance maaan.
You grew up seeing the worst abuses of the welfare state. For that you want to deprive the truly needy. Nobody here defends such abuse, yet you act like we do. Such is how hate works, I guess.
99% of people sucking tax dollars are what I mentioned above. I've literally NEVER met a person on welfare who wasn't a leech, and I grew up surrounded by it. That's right, not ONE. If 99% of welfare recipient's are leeches, I'm willing to sacrifice the 1%. I'm confident they'll find work. As for the other 99%, I could care less. I don't have much sympathy for the entitled lazy who milk the system.
That rate would be falling even more if people had jobs and access to contraception.
Wait WTF? Condoms are 3.00 for a package of 3. You can look for change in the parking lot and find enough money for a pack of 3. If you can't find 3 bucks, you shouldn't be having sex. There is plenty of access to contraception out there, at every gas station in America. If you take the welfare queen girls who get preggers as a career path through professional entitlement out of the equation, most women who have abortions didn't get pregnant because they were too broke to buy a rubber for a buck a-peice... it was because she was likely WASTED and didn't use good judgment. I know that's how I ended up a father at 17 years old. Who are you fooling here? Probably yourself.
Post a Comment