Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWith Tax Day just around the corner, and the nation attempting to recover from our worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) -- "Reversing the Great Tax Shift" -- offers seven strong recommendations on how to pay for the recovery and rebuild an economy of shared prosperity.
There is good momentum for reversing the disaster of thirty years of tax cuts for the wealthy that have contributed to growing inequality, concentration of wealth, and a shifting of the economic burden to the poor and middle class. In New York, for example, a strong progressive coalition won a key victory in pushing through a new tax structure that requires the wealthy to pay their fair share instead of paying the same rate as those earning just $20,000 a year.
The IPS report provides a good dose of historical perspective at a time when Republicans and too many Democrats fulminate at the possibility of raising the highest tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for households earning over $250,000. It notes that in 2006 (the most recent IRS data) the 139,000 taxpayers reporting incomes of $2 million or more paid just a 23 percent rate thanks to mega-loopholes; in 1955, people earning over $2 million in 2006 dollars paid a 49 percent rate. The top 400 taxpayers paid a 51 percent in 1955; in 2006 they paid just 17 percent of their incomes in federal income tax.
IPS' seven policy proposals would result in over $450 billion in annual revenues from the wealthiest people who have benefited the most from the failed conservative economic policies embraced by both parties. Some of these practical proposals include supporting the bipartisan Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act which would crack down on individuals and corporations to the tune of $100 billion annually; reversing the Bush tax cuts on income, capital gains, and dividends for households earning over $250,000, bringing in $43 billion annually (and impacting just 2.5% of taxpayers); a progressive estate tax on large fortunes -- exempting estates worth under $2 million, or $4 million per couple -- that would bring in $40-$60 billion per year while taxing no more than 1 of every 200 estates; a 50 percent tax rate on incomes over $2 million, generating $60 billion a year.
IPS says there are things you can do right now to drive these good proposals. You can contact your representatives and tell them to support the following: the president's budget -- which includes an increase in the top tax rate (35 percent to 39.6 percent) and closes overseas tax havens; the Income Equity Act introduced by Representative Barbara Lee which would eliminate tax subsidies for excessive executive compensation; and the Sensible Estate Tax Act, which will be reintroduced by Representative Jim McDermott later this month (in contrast to too many weak-kneed Senate Dems who have bought hook, line and sinker the absolute hogwash that the estate tax is hurting small businesses and family farms, and voted with the GOP to cut it.) Wealth for the Common Good is also building support among small and large business leaders and high net worth individuals who will pay these higher taxes.
Finally, in June, look for IPS to formally launch a "revenue campaign" to rally support around these proposals. There will be more opportunities for action as supporters push for further legislative action.
In the mean time, check out this smart and valuable report to learn more about good policies and for a clear historical perspective on tax rates in America. As we look to address challenges on health care, energy, global warming, and a more equitable economy, this is the kind of good work that will help provide the solutions we need.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
conservatives always love to talk about the "good ol' days" (meaning: the 1950s). i just love to point out the tax rates back then.....
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 10:18am
katrina, i just wanted to say Thank You for this article. for me, the tax structure in this country is at the core of our problem(s). to even hint at the raising of taxes is really and truly the Greatest Taboo in politics. you are one of the few brave souls in media to raise the point.
now, can you go on stephanopoulous's show and repeat what you wrote here?
thanks,
dd
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 10:24am
The right wing spin machine has had some success convincing people with homes like something out of Christina's World that they will be decimated by the estate tax even with its exemption of 4 million per couple.
Oh yeah & leaning on a stick at the corner of your half acre lot might produce an oil gusher thereby placing you in line for the progressive tax on income. Lets see if that tactic works this time around.
Posted by Sorelish at 04/13/2009 @ 10:40am
Katrina vanden Heuvel,
Some day it would be good if you could go to www.irs.gov and download historical tax revenue data by income distribution to see that the wealthy pay most of the tax now.
When tax rates were cut some wealthy people paid more in acutal tax, even though the rate was lower, because they had a higher income due to growth of the businesses brought about by a better economy, spurred on by the tax cuts.
Over and over again on this site in different threads it seems to be the sentiment that for taxes to be "fair", the rate must be the same....ignoring the economic impact of taxation and the actual data on who pays most of the tax.
The sentiment was that the tax rates needed to be "in balance".
These sentiments were put forth by people who were not quoting any credible economic theory. Their sense of being in "balance" was just the class warfare and envy and "populism"... driven by emotion and not actual fact.
You do not solve problems and in fact make them worse by promoting approaches that fly in the face of any economic theory, perhaps in fact would make things worse economically, and only serve to stoke more resentment and anger towards wealthy people as the source or cause of problems in this country.
Resentment and anger and envy towards a wealthy person is not the path by which a given individual is going to achieve success in life.
A feeling that someone must be handed something somebody else has, and that it belongs to them to begin with and was wrongly taken from them, is not the path by which a given individual is going to achieve success in life.
All people want in this country is opportunity. Opportunity was denied many people for many years...now that has changed.
People want opportunity... not what you promote.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 10:41am
I'm getting ready to head out....and make copy of my tax return and mail it off, along with a check to the US Treasury.
Let me say that, thanks to the inspiring examples of THIS administration, led by Tax Cheat No. 1 Tim Geithner, my taxes going in today, are lower than it would have been IF McCain is the POTUS today.....I decided that gaming the IRS (even more than the usual envelope-pushing) is worth the risks!
I am tired of being a sucker while watching the typical Dem politician tell me it's patriotic to pay your taxes while they scheme to avoid taxes themselves.....well, I've joined the HOPE AND CHANGE crowd, for once on this pocketbook issue.
Posted by Happy at 04/13/2009 @ 10:46am
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 10:41am
SJ, what was the economy like back in 1955 under that Marxist Ike?
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 10:53am
Posted by Happy at 04/13/2009 @ 10:46am
BTW, HAPP?...might want to start downplaying that "tax cheat" stuff come about 2010-2011...
if Caribou Barbie runs for Prez!
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 10:54am
"Some day it would be good if you could go to www.irs.gov and download historical tax revenue data by income distribution to see that the wealthy pay most of the tax now."
they make "most of the money," so they should pay "most of the tax." unless, of course, your "economic theory" (that increasing taxes increases resentment on the part of the upper class---what a "theory"!) is that it should be the reverse.
"I am tired of being a sucker while watching the typical Dem politician tell me it's patriotic to pay your taxes while they scheme to avoid taxes themselves"
so you admit that wealthy people are scheming to avoid paying taxes, and yet you decry any increase in taxes on the wealthy? funny.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 10:55am
"A feeling that someone must be handed something somebody else has, and that it belongs to them to begin with and was wrongly taken from them, is not the path by which a given individual is going to achieve success in life"
can you define what you mean by "wrongly taken from them"?
in your mind, any attempt to balance the budget vis a vis a tax increase on those making obscene amounts of money is "wrong"?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 10:56am
let's get this straight: if republicans want to continue to fight wars ("omfg, obama is cutting the defense budget!"), and cut more and more taxes, then how do they plan to not "steal from my grandchildren" in terms of increasing deficits and debt?
unfortunately, NONE OF THEM can answer that.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 10:58am
Flat tax. 17%. NO deductions. That's what we need. Everyone pays the same rate. Sounds fair to me.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/13/2009 @ 11:02am
darladoon,
When I point out that the wealthy pay most of the tax now, it is to show that the system is "fair" now.....if fairness is to be defined as the wealthy make most of the money so they should pay most of the tax.
Yet that is not what you see on The Nation. The calls are that tax rates be changed to make things more "fair" with the implication by those on the staff of this magazine (web site) that they are not fair now.
And there have been threads on this site before where fairness was defined by people arguing with me in the same way.... the rate needed to be the same.....fairness was determined by them to be an equal rate, ignoring that the wealthy pay most of the tax now..... and even when that was acknowledged, it was proclaimed by them that the rate needed to be the same, so things would be "in balance".
So that is where I am coming from with my comment. The system is fair now... increasing taxes on the wealthy that pay most of the tax now is UNFAIR to everybody in this country because it will cause economic side effects that will hinder economic growth.
So the people who would be the most adversely affected by a populist "triumph" to make things "fair" would not be the wealthy.... it would be everyone else including the lower middle class and poor who would suffer the most from a downturn in job opportunities.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 11:18am
Mask,
I am not at the moment familiar with how the economy was in 1955.....when I think of tax cuts I think more about how it was John F. Kennedy's intention to cut taxes.
It was not through lack of effort that he was unable to do so, nor did it happen that taxes did not get cut.
They did get cut but due to other circumstances Mr. Kennedy was no longer available after November 22, 1963 and Lyndon B. Johnson continued the effort to cut taxes, and taxes were cut, and revenue to the treasury INCREASED.
This, especially the correlation between the words "tax cut" and the words "revenue to the treasury increased", along with the acronyms JFK and LBJ, that are in my mind when the subjects of taxation come up.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 11:23am
Darladoon,
By "wrongly taken from them" I am using my own words to describe the gist of what it appears the political left promotes.
It appears that the left feels that property or wealth belongs to everybody equally somehow, at the start, regardless of what path they pursue in life.
In America, everybody is supposed to have equal opportunity....For many years equal opportunity did not exist, but because this is America and not someplace like North Korea, people were able to work from within to fix that.
That is equal opportunity... the ability to carve out one's own path in life and work toward that and accumulate whatever one has wanted and earned in the pursuit of their life's ambitions.
But the left believes not in equal opportunity but equal outcome off of the bat....everybody is supposed to have close to the same amount of wealth..
And the left promotes that if one does not have that, it is because they have been screwed or shafted or whatever.. thus the implication, phrased in my own word, that something that is theirs has been taken from them.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 11:29am
"increasing taxes on the wealthy that pay most of the tax now is UNFAIR to everybody in this country because it will cause economic side effects that will hinder economic growth."
(statement of the century)
those poor rich people. unfairly treated by our politicans in washington, but most of all, by the editorial staff at The Nation. boo-hoo.
but shit, just as i awarded you with your previous statement, you go ahead and drop this WHOPPER:
"so the people who would be the most adversely affected by a populist "triumph" to make things "fair" would not be the wealthy.... it would be everyone else including the lower middle class and poor who would suffer the most from a downturn in job opportunities"
wow! this is incredible. you see, the people who be most adversely affected by tax increases on the wealthy, wouldn't be the wealthy. it would be the poor. hilarious!
"It appears that the left feels that property or wealth belongs to everybody equally somehow, at the start, regardless of what path they pursue in life."
yes, that's right. but not in the ridiculoulsy simple way in which you describe it. you see, you believe that even the most tepid tax increases on those MAKING MORE THAN 250,000/YEAR is the same as "everyone owns everything together."
that's so ridiculously stupid and childish that it's almost embarrasing just to listen to you....
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 11:46am
tell me, sjchermak, which politicans are calling for an outright socialist revolution which you so painfully attempted to describe in your latest post? as opposed to a mild reversal of the most egregious tax decreases under the last president?
you see, YOU HAVE NO POINT. and YOU NEVER DID.
please, for the sake of your integrity and honesty, just be quiet now, and go back and take a nap. there are no politicans, nor editors like katrina, calling for a return to a 49% tax rate like in the 1950s. NOBODY.
i would like to see that, but i'm not in the center. i'm a devout socialist.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 11:49am
"So the people who would be the most adversely affected by a populist "triumph" to make things "fair" would not be the wealthy"
clearly, the "populist triumph" to which you refer is not the "teabagging" (snort) parties, would it?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 11:57am
the sheer irony of poor people partaking in these teabagging parties is so mindblowing..... that i cannot figure out why i live in this country anymore.
we starve the beast of funds, which essentially elevate the most vulnerable to a level where they cannot only compete, but thrive......and then these same poor people protest......starving the beast. it's so f*cked up that it makes my head explode.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:02pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 11:29am
SJ, I wouln't worry too much about the left trying to "close" tax havens and increase taxes on those who are wealthy. Tax havens will always be a staple for anyone who's smart to know were to put their money. As it stands now, the govt has a very poor track record when it comes to prosecuting alleged tax havens. Closing the few havens they know about won't deter the wealthy or anyone else from keeping the goverment's grubby hands off their money.
Posted by ACook at 04/13/2009 @ 12:13pm
Darladoon,
You said above ".....i'm a devout socialist...."
That comment explains where you are coming from, why your comments are what they are. You are approaching this subject from that standpoint.
You also said ".....it makes my head explode......"
When your head exploded, is that when you became a devout socialist?
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 12:14pm
" Closing the few havens they know about won't deter the wealthy or anyone else from keeping the goverment's grubby hands off their money."
so you support these "havens" then, despite them being technically illegal?
sjchermak, saying something or somebody is "socialist" is not an argument in and of itself. if you want to debate me, on any topic, it would be best if you understood that distinction.
same thing if i ostensibly called you a "capitalist"
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:18pm
"I wouln't worry too much about the left trying to "close" tax havens and increase taxes on those who are wealthy."
the presumption is that only the "left" wants to close tax havens. which also presumes that the "right" supports them.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:19pm
"regardless of how badly they ruin the economy, or how little work they do to 'earn' it."
exactly. and how can one person "earn" millions of dollars a year, for himself, when he has hundreds of employees doing the work for him?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:20pm
I am not at the moment familiar with how the economy was in 1955.....---Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 11:23am
So you're "not at the moment familiar"...but you ARE sure that a 1955 tax rate on the wealthy does not "solve problems and in fact make them worse by promoting approaches that fly in the face of any economic theory, perhaps in fact would make things worse economically"(Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 10:41am)
Odd that your ignorance doesn't seem to influence your certainty?!??!?!???
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 12:27pm
"When your head exploded, is that when you became a devout socialist?"
i became a socialist after reading hundreds of books, visiting dozens of different countries, talking to thousands of different people, and witnessing, first hand, the slow, painful demise of my own country.
george bush, and the advanced capitalistic ideology and philosophy governing his party, destroyed the country.
it's time we learned from their mistakes.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:28pm
looks like mask destroyed sjchermak's "argument"
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:29pm
"so you support these "havens" then, despite them being technically illegal?"
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:18pm
I support not being taxed to death. And if that means protecting my childrens' future vs. yours - you lose.
Posted by ACook at 04/13/2009 @ 12:29pm
"I support not being taxed to death. And if that means protecting my childrens' future vs. yours - you lose."
so you make more than $250,000 a year? if so, i don't think you have to worry about your childrens' future.
if you don't, then (obviously) you are not getting "taxed to death", as obama cut taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
either way, you are grossly mistaken.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:35pm
acook, you can't possibly be that stupid, can you?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:36pm
"the presumption is that only the "left" wants to close tax havens. which also presumes that the "right" supports them."
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:19pm
It presumes only that clueless people like Barbara Lee think they can close a tax shelter. Very wealthy dems and repubs secured their money a long time ago.
Look for more silent opposition across the board. The bill won't even make it to the Senate or House floors for review.
Posted by ACook at 04/13/2009 @ 12:36pm
i really am having a lot of difficulty comprehending this faux-populist outrage against obama's extremely tepid tax proposals.
the very same people protesting getting "taxed to death" are the ones receiving a tax decrease.
how does one comprehend this without going insane?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:38pm
"It presumes only that clueless people like Barbara Lee think they can close a tax shelter."
what specifically is clueless about her proposal? have you read her proposal in full?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:40pm
acook, do you support the rich hiding their money? if not, then why are you protesting those who would like that money back, and not those hiding their money?
if you do support the rich hiding their money, then how can you be surprised that the government cannot fulfill its obligations?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:41pm
"so you make more than $250,000 a year? if so, i don't think you have to worry about your childrens' future."
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:35pm
And my husband and I will see to it that our boys will be able to keep what we've set aside for them. My family ain't doing too badly. We're not uber rich, but we're not dirt poor either.
Posted by ACook at 04/13/2009 @ 12:43pm
"It presumes only that clueless people like Barbara Lee think they can close a tax shelter. "
you gotta wonder who is clueless when barb lee introduced no such bill to close tax shelters.
the bill has to do with limiting deductions on excessive executive compensation.
hmmm......i guess acook is a bit busy to deal with specifics today....
"And my husband and I will see to it that our boys will be able to keep what we've set aside for them"
ok, great. but you haven't specified whether you make less than 250,000/year or not.
if you do make less than that, then you should probably just stop pursuing this line of argumentation, because you will lose.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:46pm
"How does it help you to have Buffett pay 15% tax on his millions in compensation as a hedge fund manager (better than ditchdigging, trust me) when you're paying more on your take-home?"
she can't answer that.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:48pm
acook, do you support the rich hiding their money? if not, then why are you protesting those who would like that money back, and not those hiding their money?
if you do support the rich hiding their money, then how can you be surprised that the government cannot fulfill its obligations?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 12:41pm
Seriously Darla, demanding more taxes from the wealthy isn't going to cure what truly ails this government - their problem is they spend way more than they take in. Just look at the pork barrel projects they're loaded up on! And that's just the tip of the iceburg.
Posted by ACook at 04/13/2009 @ 12:50pm
"demanding more taxes from the wealthy isn't going to cure what truly ails this government - their problem is they spend way more than they take in. Just look at the pork barrel projects they're loaded up on! And that's just the tip of the iceburg"
oh, brother. it's like the ultimate GOP talking point....
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 1:07pm
acook, give us an example of "pork barrel" spending.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 1:08pm
"Why does it always have to be a choice between you and everyone else with you folks on the right?"
Because I choose to earn my pay for living as opposed to people like darla, who's very talented, and yet refuses to apply that college education she worked her butt off to get.
"Where does this irrational belief in a zero-sum game come from?"
It's not irrational to want to keep what you've earned.
"Does my wife destroy the economy by giving a friend a lift to work instead of insisting that they get a rental car on their own?"
Well that would depend on the numbers of times your wife's friend takes advantage of the situation. Why add additional wear and tear on your car? If it breaks down will you be able to convince the friend to contribute to getting the car repaired?
"You do realize that if we get Warren Buffet, Goldman-Sachs, and me to pay the taxes we're 'supposed to', then there's less chance we'll need to raise yours?"
Do you think you're paying your fair share?
"How does it help you to have Buffett pay 15% tax on his millions in compensation as a hedge fund manager (better than ditchdigging, trust me) when you're paying more on your take-home?"
When's the last time you took a look at Buffett's tax statements? Look, I like Mr. Buffett and sometimes he gives good advice, but he only pays on what he reports. Most of this assets are "tied up" in other outside ventures. Any freshman accountant would tell you that.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/13/2009 @ 12:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by ACook at 04/13/2009 @ 1:08pm
"So you're for cutting defense spending then?
You know...that other 60+% of the iceberg...
Posted by snowball666 at 04/13/2009 @ 12:53pm
Sure. Closing overseas bases would be a good start.
Crap!! Gotta run. Meeting starting in 15 minutes. I'll talk to you when I get back.
Posted by ACook at 04/13/2009 @ 1:11pm
"I choose to earn my pay for living as opposed to people like darla, who's very talented, and yet refuses to apply that college education she worked her butt off to get."
acook, can you grow all the food you need to survive? do you know how to install solar panels, rainwater cisterns, grey water recycling? can you cultivate medicinal herbs and teas?
or do you just sit at a desk all day, typing away, "earning" your fair share?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 2:03pm
Katrina never misses an opportunity to espouse her marxist demands for stealing the fruit of others labor.
Nor do the usual crowd of leftist tax thieves here along with Katrina miss an opportunity to misrepresent the facts about taxation.
In 1980 prior to the Reagan and Bush taxcuts, the top 1% paid 17.6% of the income tax revenue.
In 1988, the top 1% paid 27.5%
In 2006 the top 1% paid 39.7%.
So explain how taxcuts have shifted the burden to the middle and lower income classes?
Despite the claims by the lemming like Darla and a few others, Obama did not give 95% of Americans a taxcut. 1st of all 46% of Americans do not pay income tax according to the IRS. 2nd, There was no taxcut. Cite for us the changed tax rates for the so-called 95%?
3rd, if you are self-employed and do not receive a W2, you receive no tax credit benefit. It is only directed towards those who receive a W2.
Who said the following?
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:06pm
I think one of the best resolutions for American taxpayers is to do what smart corporations do and set up our own offshore tax havens.
If we don't starve this beast now, it will demolish our constitutional republic and replace it with a totalitarian socialist state that would make Hugo Chavez proud.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:09pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:06p
Wanna know what the difference is LVL? If you actually read her article the rich are only actually paying about 25%. It doesn't matter what the top tax bracket is called it matters what is actually getting paid.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/13/2009 @ 2:27pm
If we don't starve this beast now, it will demolish our constitutional republic and replace it with a totalitarian socialist state that would make Hugo Chavez proud.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:09pm
If we don't starve the defense spending beast it will turn or constitutional republic into a fascist dictatorship that would make Hitler proud!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/13/2009 @ 2:28pm
In 1980 prior to the Reagan and Bush taxcuts, the top 1% paid 17.6% of the income tax revenue.
In 1988, the top 1% paid 27.5%
In 2006 the top 1% paid 39.7%.
So explain how taxcuts have shifted the burden to the middle and lower income classes?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
We've seen Lying Larry post this crap several times of late. What he hopes nobody will notice, is the 'other data' that goes with this...
In 1980, the income of top 1% accounted for about 8% of all income. Now, it is more like 28% of all income. Meanwhile, the income for the bottom 50% is shrinking - by a lot.
The richest Americans pay a higher percentage of taxes, becuase they are the ones making most of the money!
In fact, according to the WSJ...
"In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.
Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677287690575589.html
http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=475
http://www.house.gov/jec/news/2007/October/pr110-26.pdf
Posted by Lillian at 04/13/2009 @ 2:39pm
In 1980 prior to the Reagan and Bush taxcuts, the top 1% paid 17.6% of the income tax revenue.
In 1988, the top 1% paid 27.5%
In 2006 the top 1% paid 39.7%.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:06pm
Interesting little "switcheroo" there...everybody catch it?
FIRST he talks about the rich paying "17.6 OF the income tax revenue"...
then he switches to "they paid 27.5%" then "39.7%"
But that's not right. Those are the RATES they paid, while the first thing was the amount of the total national income tax they were paying.
The top marginal rate THROUGH 1984, under Reagan, was 50%....not 17.5%.
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 2:39pm
Posted by Lillian at 04/13/2009 @ 2:39pm
Great minds, LILLIAN.
Neat little rhetorical trick Larry was trying to pull, huh?
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 2:40pm
In 1980 prior to the Reagan and Bush taxcuts, the top 1% paid 17.6% of the income tax revenue.
In 1988, the top 1% paid 27.5%
In 2006 the top 1% paid 39.7%.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:06pm
Interesting little "switcheroo" there...everybody catch it?
FIRST he talks about the rich paying "17.6 OF the income tax revenue"...
then he switches to "they paid 27.5%" then "39.7%"
But that's not right. Those are the RATES they paid, while the first thing was the amount of the total national income tax they were paying.
The top marginal rate THROUGH 1984, under Reagan, was 50%....not 17.5%.
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 2:39pm
Great minds, LILLIAN.
Neat little rhetorical trick Larry was trying to pull, huh?
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 2:40pm
No, it seems you are both a couple of liars.
I did not cite the tax rate. I cited the IRS data on the percentage of taxes paid.
So both you and Lillian keep up your usual lies.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:51pm
I did not cite the tax rate. I cited the IRS data on the percentage of taxes paid.
So both you and Lillian keep up your usual lies.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
What you didn't cite Larry is how the percentage of total **income** of the top 1% increased faster and higher than the percentage of the taxes they paid.
Seems the one lying was you Larry...
...and you got caught.
Posted by Lillian at 04/13/2009 @ 3:15pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:51pm
Sorry, Larry. Those figures seemed RATHER close to the top marginal tax rates at those time periods.
Might I ask?...did you get that IRS data...DIRECTLY from the IRS website or elsewhere?
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 3:41pm
When tax rates were cut some wealthy people paid more in acutal tax, even though the rate was lower, because they had a higher income due to growth of the businesses brought about by a better economy, spurred on by the tax cuts.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 10:41am
better economy??!??!??
hahahahhahahahhahaha.
perhaps you should stick to watching tmz....
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/13/2009 @ 3:49pm
IF McCain is the POTUS today...
Posted by Happy at 04/13/2009 @ 10:46am
if mccain WERE the potus.....
SECRETARY GRAMM?!?!?!????!???!??!???!??!??!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/13/2009 @ 3:50pm
Flat tax. 17%. NO deductions. That's what we need. Everyone pays the same rate. Sounds fair to me.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/13/2009 @ 11:02am
hopelessly naïve.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/13/2009 @ 3:51pm
acook, give us an example of "pork barrel" spending.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 1:08pm
RAPTOR!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/13/2009 @ 3:54pm
marxist demands?!?!???!??
who rights that kind of drivel?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/13/2009 @ 3:56pm
hahaha,
rights!
oops.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/13/2009 @ 4:11pm
so, just to reiterate, for larry, reversing the most egregious of the bush tax cuts = marxism.
that is really all we need to know about larry.
we don't even need to get into a basic pre-requisite for marxism, namely, that the workers collectively own and operate the means of production of a major industry.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 4:14pm
well, darla,
you DO own a lot of banks.
oh, but you don't get to operate them.
oh, well.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/13/2009 @ 4:17pm
Reversing the idiotic tax policies of the past 30 years is an important step, but another important part of making our economy a viable means of supporting American families is to end drug prohibition. It didn't work with alcohol - unless you consider black market profits feeding the Mafia into the 1980s a success. Thirty years of "zero tolerance" failed to achieved a drug-free society, eroded constitutional protections of our persons & papers [& some people's chosen pursuit of happiness] & respect for our government, & strained budgets for necessities: health care, housing, higher education.
Drug prohibition drains resources from fighting fraud, theft, violent crime, & cold cases [Gary Ridgeway's DNA sat untested for *years* while the Green River task force was defunded to 0 cops], but creates profits that fuel criminal organizations including the Taliban & Al Qaeda.
I"m amazed so many citizens think everyone should either get their own insurance or pay out of pocket for care of physical illnesses [most infections, defects or accidents are no fault of the patient], but using the full weight of the federal government to bully people from voluntarily using drugs is a necessary use of our tax money.
Freedom means other citizens can do things you think stupid or distasteful. People die skydiving - we don't arrest the guy who sold them the parachute. It's legal to marry a convicted spouse-killer, mountain climb, cave dive, etc.
Most important of all - the Constitution guarantees the right to hold & publish any ideas you wish. Whether those weird ideas you hold come from swallowing a pill or reading a loose translation of the exploits of bronze-age superheroes should be be of no concern to the constitutional government of a free nation.
Posted by TrishR at 04/13/2009 @ 4:59pm
I think that it's definitely time to reevaluate not only how we get our tax revenue but also how we spend it. For instance, the Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.
Posted by davidwaters at 04/13/2009 @ 5:02pm
With the Obama Administration we are getting a good inside look at what a socialist state begins to look like. Especially, Obama talks about the issue that we all have to share the sacrifice and responsibility. What I find fascinating is that he delivered a bill which none of the senators and congressmen read and which the democrats promptly voted in when it hit the floor. There was no bipartisanship, no careful deliberation, no debate. What kind of representative government is that? It is the height of irresponsibility in my opinion. And to think we will have to put up with these tax cheats for the next four years! When April 15, comes, I plan to protest in out state's Tea Party. Th real Tea Party will be in November 2012, when we elect another person who is not a thug, can provide a birth certificate as being a natural born United States citizen, and who does not speak out of both sides of his mouth.
Posted by shorewater at 04/13/2009 @ 5:23pm
Despite all the rhetoric, all the posing, all the pimping and all the pandering. Some things are obvious.
We need to roll back the Reagan tax cuts. At the same time we need to roll back the Glass-Steagall Act and completely repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Just for starters.
After these simple things are done the great american middle class will rise again..
And we need us..
Posted by chaoszen at 04/13/2009 @ 5:41pm
And we need to acknowledge that Ronald Reagan was one the biggest wastes of a human being that the world has ever seen.
Posted by chaoszen at 04/13/2009 @ 5:54pm
Sorry, Larry. Those figures seemed RATHER close to the top marginal tax rates at those time periods. Might I ask?...did you get that IRS data...DIRECTLY from the IRS website or elsewhere?
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 3:41pm
I didn't lie at all. It is the Tax Foundation's reports using the data from the Treasury Dept
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
By Gerald Prante
The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data on individual income taxes comes from calendar year 2006, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, increasing individual income tax collections along with overall average effective tax rates. This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
Table 6 provides the share of income taxes paid by percentage bracket
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 6:42pm
And we need to acknowledge that Ronald Reagan was one the biggest wastes of a human being that the world has ever seen.
Posted by chaoszen at 04/13/2009 @ 5:54pm
One of the 3 top presidents in our nations history. He evidently had far more class than you.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 6:44pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 6:42pm
The Tax Foundation having no....political agenda, naturally. Yes?
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 6:56pm
The Tax Foundation having no....political agenda, naturally. Yes?
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 6:56pm
Why don't you try and show what IRS data they are misrepresenting. I'd love to see you try.
Even SRJenkins accepted the Tax Foundation's data as objective.
You can question their recommendations, but it is difficult to see how you question the data from the IRS.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 7:19pm
More to Mask.
If you look on the webpage I provided, they have the link to most of the IRS data that was used. I ran a couple of the calculations. I differ with them on 2006 as I get 38.7% not 39.9%.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 7:30pm
"With the Obama Administration we are getting a good inside look at what a socialist state begins to look like"
i wasn't aware that socialism meant:
a) shared sacrifice
b) passing bills promptly w/out reading them
c) being partisan
d) being duplicitous
i guess i'll have to re-read my marx and engels books
thanks for sharing (not)
dd
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 7:50pm
antisocialist,
You asked a general question above:
"..Who said the following?...[followed by a discussion of the need for tax cuts]....."
Nobody has answered your question (or quiz), so far.
Let me do that. (and I did not look this up on the internet first, if anybody like Mask thinks I did).
The answer, I am quite certain, is President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
That would be the same President Kennedy, who along with President Ronald Reagan, defeated the Soviet Union. (JFK told the Soviets their communism would not be tolerated and would not last. After several Presidents in between, both Democrat and Republican, who went for detente instead, President Ronald Reagan went ahead and did what President Kennedy told the Soviets would happen.)
If for some reason President Kennedy is not the correct answer to the quote you posted, he said something very similar.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 7:52pm
As long as I put in a post that contains partially a subject not the main subject of this thread, I will expand upon it.
I have been in arguments before about what President Kennedy said.
Do not take my word for it. There are any number of websites where you can read the text of and listen to Ich Bin Ein Berliner.
It is crystal clear what President Kennedy said... the Soviet communism would not be tolerated and would not last.
(here comes Mask in 5..4...3...2...1 - Yes, Mask I am aware that the words Ich Bin Ein Berliner in German really do not exactly mean I am a Berliner, but I am a potato, or something like that...I guess that provided amusement for some people back then, probably people like Mask -- what is clear what President Kennedy meant, and the Germans knew that he was saying all free people are citizens of Berlin, and that communism would not be tolerated and would not last)
Anyway, President Kennedy was clear in what he said and meant.... but apparently no President in between fully understood this....... President Ronald Reagan understood this and took responsibility to bring this about.........I would think up above President Kennedy was nodding his head in approval and was certainly among the first to shake President Reagan's hand when he went up above a few years ago.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 8:04pm
As far as the taxes and economy go, I have seen a lot of the typical class warfare stuff up above.....
Rich people apparently do not work and have never worked....the money they have belongs to and was earned by the workers!
That is an expansion upon the same old same old that managers do not work, business owners do not work, etc.
But what is lost is that they worked hard to establish the businesses, that is how they got wealthy to begin with, and in many cases it is the wealthy people's money that has been put forth to provide the capital upon which the business operates.
And if somebody got wealthy through inheritance then some ancestor of theirs worked hard and put it all on the line to try and make a go in life and succeeded.
Without this work and investment, which class warfare proponents like Darladoon proclaim is nothing or is not work, then there would be no business for the workers to work at to begin with.
They would have to go to another company to be screwed and oppressed! (sarcasm)
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 8:11pm
"Resentment and anger and envy towards a wealthy person is not the path by which a given individual is going to achieve success in life."
The best antidote to resentment, anger, and envy towards wealthy people, "sjchermak," is the knowledge that they are duly taxed.
More to the point, progressive taxation is the right thing to do NOT because I or anybody else is resentful, angry, or envious. It is the right thing to do because:
(1) Nobody actually needs a million-dollar year-end bonus.
(2) Income like that is a serious disincentive to work. Why work when you can simply invest your money and let it work for you?
(3) Progressive taxation recognizes that the present distribution of property in this country is in large part the historical result of genocidal land acquisition and the exploitation of slave labor.
(4) Progressive taxation permits us all to be paid differently according to our quality of work, but brings the income classes closer together - so that we can all recognize each other as human beings.
(5) Progressive taxation is the investment we all make in the true sources of wealth: (5a) natural resources, which must be managed responsibly to keep them available for future generations, and (5b) workers, who both deserve and require continual training, healthcare, and a decent wage.
(6) Progressive taxation reflects the deep, fundamentally religious AND scientific awareness that we are not the creators of our own wealth, or even of our own virtues, but rather the mere recipients of these blessings, who ought to respond not with pride and self-righteous greed, but with gratitude and generosity.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/13/2009 @ 8:12pm
Sometimes it helps to see an issue from another perspective. Put yourself in the place of a young man at the time of the American Revolution. It is an exciting time and the Declaration had just been written promising a new way of governance (not republicanism but democracy...representative governance was merely the form that democracy would take) and the representatives would come from the people...a government of by and for all of the people. That was worth fighting for. But ask yourself this: how many soldiers do you suppose our Founders would have recruited if they had said something like this: yes, yes democracy. And to overthrow the king's rule. But it is also our intent to replace the British Aristocracy with an American Aristocracy. Do you suppose they would have been able to find even a handful of soldiers to fight for that cause? Do our soldiers in any of our wars fight to protect the private property of the rich? Or do they..do we all..fight to preserve democracy. A government of by and for all of the people: including the right for all of the people to establish..by majority rule...any economic system that benefits them as a whole. You can call that socialism, but I call it democracy in charge not the economic system in charge. We need to see that happen in America. Unfortunately, at this point in our history...after the Guilded Age and the Industrial Revolution...up to the present time, we have let down our Revolutionary Soldiers by permitting an American Aristocracy to replace the British Aristocracy. Its time to honor their service.
Posted by demslogger at 04/13/2009 @ 8:23pm
JakobFabian,
You present arguments in support of progressive taxation.
But what you say we should have is what we do have now. The wealthy pay most of the tax now.
The left has perpetuated a lie for many years that the wealthy pay no tax or little tax.
That lie is no longer sustainable so now the left still claims that the taxation is not fair, based on rates.
I have seen blog posts on this site where people want the rates raised on the rich so things are "in balance". This wish is not based on any economic logic or even need for the money or any consideration for the economic impact of that... it is almost instead as though some of these individuals would feel better if the rate on wealthy was raised. Just an emotional "feel better" that somehow things would then be fair.
I do not agree at all with your item (3) above. That may have been true in other societies long ago, but that is not true in the United States of America, and never has been.
There are any number of examples of people who started out with practically nothing and turned into millionaires...
A lot of wealth today is new wealth. Perhaps the best example is Bill Gates. What happened in this country 100 to 200 years ago does not define who has the wealth in this country today.
The United States of America is really the first country to come along in human history where your item 3 is definitely not true.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 8:25pm
"Sjchermak," does the Gospel of John begin like this?
"In the beginning there was Money, and the Money was with God, and the Money was God. Money was in the beginning with God. All wealth came into being through Money, and without Money, not one thing worth having came into being."
Does the Book of Genesis begin like this?
"Then God said, 'Let there be money'; and there was money. And God saw that the money was good. And God invested the money, and there was profit and bankruptcy, the first day of the stock market. And with his untaxed capital gains, God invested in suns, planets, soil, air, water, plants, and people, which all sprang into being because the desire for profit motivated them to do so."
No, I think you and I both know how the Creation really began: with LABOR and NATURE. THESE are the sources of wealth. They always have been, and they always will be. This was so LONG before money was invented, and it remains true now.
Although I appreciate the notion that surplus money, invested both by government and by the wealthy, is (metaphorically speaking) the oil that lubricates the economy, it would be a grave mistake to imagine that it is the fuel. As the old Cree saying goes:
"When the last tree is cut down, the last river poisoned, and the last fish caught, then you will discover that you cannot eat money."
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/13/2009 @ 8:47pm
"But what you say we should have is what we do have now. The wealthy pay most of the tax now."
Here's what I said the LAST time you raised that lame argument. I'll repeat it here, verbatim:
It's not the actual amount of taxes that the rich pay that matters, "sjchermak." It's how much they can AFFORD to pay compared to how much the rest of us can afford to pay.
This is as true of the lower end of the income spectrum as it is of the upper end. This is the meaning of the parable of the Widow's Offering, which you can find in the Gospel of Mark (chapter 12, verses 41-43). No doubt you know the story, so I'll repeat only the punchline:
"Truly I tell you," said Jesus of Nazareth, "this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury (including your plutocrats, "sjchermak"). For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."
For the record, I believe the poor, and lower-income workers as well, should of course be exempt from all taxation, though they are free to give to charity if they wish. But those who live in abundance should also be taxed abundantly. This is a simple concept of fairness, and it dates back at least as far as the New Testament, and probably much farther. For another example of the New Testament's (admittedly inconsistent) endorsement of radical wealth-redistribution, read Acts chapter 4, verses 32-37 and chapter 5, verses 1-11.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/13/2009 @ 9:00pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/13/2009 @ 7:52pm
What I find interesting is how you know SO much of JFK...
but are "not familiar with" the economy under Eisenhower in 1955??!?!?!?!?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 9:05pm
Bill Gates: Tax Me!
By George Howland Jr. in Politics, State of Washington
Friday, Jun. 30 2006 @ 3:47PM
Today, the Association of Washington Business (AWB), the state's largest business lobby, joined a former organizer and current member of the extremist, right-wing John Birch Society to try to overturn a wonderful, progressive tax--Washington's estate tax--by backing Initiative 920. Gov. Christine Gregoire, Speaker of the state House Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, and the Legislature showed real leadership last year by passing the tax, which will only affect around 210 Washington families a year but will raise $100 million a year in revenues.
The world's wealthiest man, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, believes the tax is a good idea--he donated $10,000 to the Committee to Protect Our Children's Legacy that is opposing I-920.
Posted by Lillian at 04/13/2009 @ 9:54pm
For the record, I believe the poor, and lower-income workers as well, should of course be exempt from all taxation, though they are free to give to charity if they wish. But those who live in abundance should also be taxed abundantly. Posted by JakobFabian at 04/13/2009 @ 9:00pm
But why "taxed abundantly"? Just to put them in their place? This post, and many others here, seem to advocate increasing taxation as simply confiscation. Just as a way of sticking it to the Rich Man.
I just don't think that the government can spend a rich guy's money more efficiently than he can. The government takes the money, then uses it for wasteful or inefficient projects like the levees that destroyed New Orleans. Or the rich guy can keep it, hire other guys to work for him, and allow them to provide for their families. Because, it's not like the rich guy is going to use that money to light Cuban cigars, or keep it in a money room like Scrooge McDuck. If it is not taxed, he spends it. If it is taxed, then the government spends it.
Posted by twillie at 04/13/2009 @ 10:16pm
Even SRJenkins accepted the Tax Foundation's data as objective.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 7:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
OK Larry. Let's use the data from the Tax Foundation. According to them...
In 1980, the top 1% had 8.4% of total AGI (adjusted gross income).
By 2006, the top 1% took 22% of total AGI.
At the other end of the spectrum, in 1980, the bottom 50% gota tad under 18% of total AGI.
In 2006, the bottom 50% got 12% of total AGI.
Like I said, the rich pay a higher percentage of total taxes today because THEY are getting a LOT more of the total $$$ income while the bottom 50% are paying less because they getting MUCH less.
Of course, you were so busy posting half the story...lying your rear end off really...
...you couldn't let folsk in on ALL the facts!
Posted by Lillian at 04/13/2009 @ 10:16pm
Of course, you were so busy posting half the story...lying your rear end off really...
...you couldn't let folsk in on ALL the facts!
Posted by Lillian at 04/13/2009 @ 10:16pm
Lillian-get off your idiotic high horse. I posted the truth that the top 1% have paid increasing, not decreasing percentage of the income tax. you continue off on a tangent that was not my context.
My point was and has been that tax cuts produce a higher percentage of the taxes being paid by the rich.
your problem like most leftists is that you cannot abide by them having any left over.
If they carry the tax burden who should care if they get wealthier? More power to them.
46% of taxpayers pay ZERO income tax under the cumulative effects of Reagan and Bush taxcuts.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 10:39pm
"When the last tree is cut down, the last river poisoned, and the last fish caught, then you will discover that you cannot eat money."
marx said the same thing, only differently.
jakobfabian, you are def on point tonight, bravo. clearly you have already won this debate, fair and square. i don't see how anyone can defeat your premise(s)
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 10:53pm
"If they carry the tax burden who should care if they get wealthier? More power to them"
and herein lies the fundamental problem with antisocialist's and sjchermak's arguments.
can anyone else see the problem with this line of thinking? it's clear as day, but i'm there are some here (the aforementioned two) who can't see it....
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 10:55pm
My point was and has been that tax cuts produce a higher percentage of the taxes being paid by the rich.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 10:39pm
But you didn't prove that point LVL. Your using one subset of data that is marred by a massively increasing income. The increasing income is not proven to be connected to lower taxes. If you want to prove your point you have to look at the year before a tax cut and the year after. Stretching it out especially in the US doesn't work because the rich have gotten richer and not necessarily due to taxes. Correlation is not causation.
You can't present one batch of data and say this is the case across the board because even the best known economists who study those trends don't agree on premise so for you to say it with nothing but one small table of data to show doesn't really prove anything ESPECIALLY because there have been so many variables that the data isn't as useful, which is probably why economists don't agree on it.
Also, if you want to be taken seriously it helped if you don't automatically resort to generalization and insult whenever someone is debating with you.
"your problem like most leftists is that you cannot abide by them having any left over. "
That invalidates everything you say before it because that tells me that everything you have said before it is not of worth because you are willing to use a gross generalization based on opinion with no actual facts to back it up.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/13/2009 @ 11:04pm
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2009/01/historical- federal-tax-rates-by-income-group.html
(space between the - and federal)
Now do your argument LVL. This is a graph and article showing taxes broken down through history. If you look at the graph you will see that the people who's taxes truly fell are the top .01% of tax payers. After that would be the top 1%. Once you get down to middle class people the taxes have fluctuated between 18% and 20% under every single President including Reagan and Bush. The Media income families tax percentage is at it's lowest since 1955, however it has been about the same since 1955. There is no dramatic change. In 1955 it was about 6% total give or take.
You guys love to claim that Reagan made some sweeping change but he really didn't. He changed the top 2% of tax payers dramatically but if you step back you will see that the vast majority are still paying the same amount.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/13/2009 @ 11:15pm
jakobfabian, you are def on point tonight, bravo. clearly you have already won this debate, fair and square. i don't see how anyone can defeat your premise(s)
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
-----------------------------------------
NO, Darlaloon it just means you both follow irrational arguements with the same lack of understanding. Jako totally quotes scripture not only "out of context" but misapplies it and irresponsibly gives it another meaning!
When it comes to taxes Christ clearly indicated;
Matthew 22 17"Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?"
18But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?
19"Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius.
20And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"
21They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
Clearly throughout the bible your tithe obligation to God is 10% "reguardless" of gross income, but the widow disreguarding her worldly needs chose to give all that she possessed monetarily on earth to God.
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/13/2009 @ 11:20pm
Actually, Warren, a Democrat, brought it up himself...check out the video at the bottom left of the page for his explanation of why he should be taxed more than the 17 people he suerveyed on their tax rate in his office.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/19483842/
Posted by snowball666 at 04/13/2009 @ 4:20pm
I don't care what Buffett says, the money he made will never be touched by the government. Remember when he alleglly "gave" most of his money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Well, by doing that, he gets to protect his vast assets by transferring it to a legal loophole called a not-for-profit.
Too bad common folk can't get free access to Guidestar.org to see how the 1.8 million tax-exempt organizations are filing their 990s.
Posted by ACook at 04/13/2009 @ 11:22pm
Now do your argument LVL. This is a graph and article showing taxes broken down through history. If you look at the graph you will see that the people who's taxes truly fell are the top .01% of tax payers. After that would be the top 1%. Once you get down to middle class people the taxes have fluctuated between 18% and 20% under every single President including Reagan and Bush. The Media income families tax percentage is at it's lowest since 1955, however it has been about the same since 1955. There is no dramatic change. In 1955 it was about 6% total give or take.
You guys love to claim that Reagan made some sweeping change but he really didn't. He changed the top 2% of tax payers dramatically but if you step back you will see that the vast majority are still paying the same amount.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/13/2009 @ 11:15pm
You tried this argument once before. It is not IRS data, but the personal projections and assumptions of the leftists who run that site.
None of your arguments have validity.
The fact is that since Reagan began his tax cuts, the top brackets have increasingly paid the burden of taxes in this country.
It doesn't matter a single iota that they accumulated more wealth. That is a strawman argument to the central argument.
The wealthy pay most of the taxes. The bottom 50% only pay 2.9% of all income tax. The top 10% pay 73%
You and the others keep making the specious argument that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share".
What is fair? Should the top 1% pay 90% of all the income taxes? At what point will you leftists ever be satisfied?
The answer is you won't.
Only when you have your "socialist utopia", and no one is wealthy will you at least temporarily be satisfied. But that won't be the end.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 11:24pm
What is so funny is the leftist think the Obamanation of desolation Presidents "taxing the rich" taxes are only for those above $250,000. not $163,000. as all familiar with the proposed tax code changes know! Well, let the surprise surprise reality hit them along with ALL the other tax increases they are going to see on every tax bracket!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/13/2009 @ 11:40pm
"Only when you have your "socialist utopia", and no one is wealthy will you at least temporarily be satisfied."
not a socialist utopia, just a fair tax structure. fuck, not even a fair tax structure, just a roll-back of all of the bush tax cuts....
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:35am
Lillian-get off your idiotic high horse. I posted the truth that the top 1% have paid increasing, not decreasing percentage of the income tax. you continue off on a tangent that was not my context.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 10:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Actually Larry, you keep trying hard to post just half the truth, then lie about the other half.
I showed data from the WSJ - no leftist source there - that said exactly WHY the top 1% pay a higher percentage of taxes...because their income shot up.
Here's the exact same story in the NYTimes...
http://tinyurl.com/dje4a9
"The affluent are paying more of the taxes because they're making so much more money."
"Tax cut advocates like to argue that taxes on the affluent have entered the realm of Robin Hood. This year, Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush's former press secretary, wrote an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal suggesting that a small slice of taxpayers was being asked to foot almost the entire bill for the federal government. "The problem is that there is a tipping point after which piling taxes onto the rich will leave the government unable to meet its obligations," Mr. Fleischer wrote.
Reading that, you would probably assume that the tax rates on high-income families have soared over the last generation. But they haven't.
A family in that top 1 percent of earners paid a total federal tax rate -- including everything from payroll taxes to income taxes to capital gains taxes -- of 30 percent in 2004. That was down from 41 percent a decade before. Since the 1950s, tax rates on high-income families have generally been falling. "
Posted by Lillian at 04/14/2009 @ 01:09am
"The top earners pay a bigger share of the government tab than in the past because their incomes have risen so sharply -- even more sharply than their tax bills. (Mr. Fleischer was able to claim the opposite by looking only at income taxes.)
The affluent, in short, are paying **less** in taxes on every dollar they earn but earning many more dollars."
.
Like I said Larry.
Posted by Lillian at 04/14/2009 @ 01:10am
"A family in that top 1 percent of earners paid a total federal tax rate -- including everything from payroll taxes to income taxes to capital gains taxes -- of 30 percent in 2004"
and when you find out how much one family, within that 1%, made in one year.......you realize how insignificant a 30% tax rate is. the median income for the top 1% is so obscene.....that it's hard to believe how anyone here could defend their egregious wealth, when millions of people in this country cannot even afford basic health care.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 01:21am
Quit picking on smokers! MY tax dollars are going to health care. Are smokers going to be covered? Are only U.S. citizens going to be covered? Are employment biases against smokers going to be lifted in places like Florida? Lets get real. If you discriminate against smokers lets do it for all people based on "lifestyle choices".
WARNING: GRAPHIC TRUTH.
28 percent of homosexual males had sexual encounters with 1,000 or more males. 79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers. Half of the white homosexual said that they had at least 500 different sex partners. Some reported as many as 20,000 different partners. Average age of death from AIDS ..... 35.7 years. Expected average life span (of the homosexual community) 45 years. Here's more
90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about 67% do it regularly. Gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year. Over 1/3 of gays admit to "fisting". (Putting their fist where the sun don't shine.) About 80% of gays admit to tongue/anus penetration. According to reports The journal AIDS reported that in the Netherlands, where "gay marriage" has been legal since 2001, HIV and other diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that "partnered" homosexuals have "outside" lovers, and are contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates. This puts more young people at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, "gay bowel syndrome," human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases.19
Posted by mike63 at 04/14/2009 @ 02:56am
THe "leviathan" has come. The only "growth" is the U.S. Government. Nothing more than a parsitic organism. As your job goes away, your earnings dwindle, your portolio shrinks, costs go higher, you are crushed under the boot-heel of the Leviathan. Once they have taken all they can they will go in the back room and print money, making your savings go up in smoke. In the interm they bloat the news, and dump paper to artifically inflate markets. All the while smiling, and reveling in the warm spotlight of adulation of what good, smart, and well meaning persons they are. Meanwhile you are left...with less. They get more.More power, money, and the ability to tax, spend, and shepard those who believe into the corner of total dependence. Its criminal.
Posted by mike63 at 04/14/2009 @ 03:06am
Need anymore prrof taxes are too high? Too bad these people can't just print money like the U.S government can! http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE53D01M20090414
Posted by mike63 at 04/14/2009 @ 03:28am
Did a little Googling on Larry's "27.5% in 1988" etc. information and found it in FIVE places-
1. The Tax Foundation (which he noted)
2. The Washington Times
3. The Heritage Foundation
4. Citizens for Tax Justice
5. A Joint Economic Committee report issued in 1996 chaired by a Republican and held in majority by Republicans.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 08:03am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/14/2009 @ 09:04am
Read the new Paul Krugman article? Great line-
"But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party.
Thus, President Obama is being called a "socialist" who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre."
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 09:17am
Lot of Leftists have no appreciation for what capitalists do. We risk our money to back innovations, risk-taking and provide cutting-edge jobs.....and once in a while, we hit a home run and perhaps once in a decade, we hit a grand slam.....while I have yet to hit a grand slam, I may have hit another homer......the question now is, how much chips to take off the table?
For the men reading this, someday, when you or someone else you know, suffers from prostate cancer, you may want to thank HAPPY for helping to underwrite the drug called Provenge.....that just came thru Phase III trial with some `excitement'!
Biotech
Dendreon Stock Soars on Provenge Results
04/14/09 - 10:12 AM EDT
Adam Feuerstein
Updated from 9:18 a.m. EDT
Shares of Dendreon(DNDN Quote) soared Tuesday after the company said its prostate cancer vaccine Provenge significantly prolonged the overall survival of patients compared to a placebo.
The Seattle-based drugmaker said the phase III study of Provenge, known as IMPACT, met its primary endpoint with statistical significance. Details of the study are being withheld so that they can be presented at a medical conference April 28.
Dendreon shares were rising 175% to $20.10 in recent trading......
Posted by Happy at 04/14/2009 @ 09:54am
Posted by Happy at 04/14/2009 @ 09:54am
The Forbes story was a little dubious too, wasn't it?
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 10:50am
Actually Larry, you keep trying hard to post just half the truth, then lie about the other half.
A family in that top 1 percent of earners paid a total federal tax rate -- including everything from payroll taxes to income taxes to capital gains taxes -- of 30 percent in 2004. That was down from 41 percent a decade before. Since the 1950s, tax rates on high-income families have generally been falling. "
Posted by Lillian at 04/14/2009 @ 01:09am
No, I don't' post what you are claiming because it's irrelevant. I don't care if the rich are getting richer.
The fact remains that they are paying most of the income tax in this country. It wouldn't matter if their rate was 5% if it resulted as it has in them paying most of the taxes.
That is the central point that you and other leftists are simply unwilling to acknowledge. At the heart of it is the Marxist class envy and and dogma that says it is "unfair' that someone make vastly more than others.
Well, without this system, the US would never have grown to be the largest, most productive economy in the history of mankind.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:36am
Since we are up to our eyeballs in debt there's also other ways to increase revenue....raise the gas tax to 3 bucks a gallon. That alone will raise another 400 billion a year and EVERYBOBY pays...rich and poor. Other advantages..
1. People get off their obese ass and walk and ride bikes. With our obesity rates at 60%, diabetes rates climbing, health care cost rising we can't afford to continue to ignore this issue.
2. We use 100 billion less gallons of gas a year and stop paying others for our energy.
3. We reduce our deficets
Yes we still need to tax our wealthy more too. The 60's had 92% tax rates. And nobody complained!!! It was the law and we did not have the mega rich. Parade magazine just listed one hedge fund manager making 1.5 billion last year. Thats obscene!!!
Posted by notsleepy at 04/14/2009 @ 11:57am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/14/2009 @ 11:54am
Snowball,
thanks first of all for civil dialogue.
I didn't intend for my statement to be all inclusive as I recognize that there are some on the left like yourself who do appreciate capitalism and it's opportunities. If you look closely, I directed my statement to Lillian and other leftists. I acknowledge that can be misconstrued as being all inclusive, but it wasn't intended that way.
2nd-you do I hope understand by now that I have long stated on this website that I am a libertarian who mostly votes Republican?
My view of optimizing liberty for people is as most of the founders believed, a small central govt that ensured our liberties were not violated and that the states could function in harmony with each other.
What our constitution was not designed to do is ensure "fairness"; at least not fairness as is envisioned by this new form of liberalism. The constitution was structured so that the fairness would be in how the constitution is applied to all citizens.
One of the central criticisms of establishing an income tax is not just as Chief Justice Marshall said in McCulloch v Maryland that the power to tax is the power to destroy; it is that those in power are too susceptible to using taxes for manipulation of both economies and society rather than just ensuring govt remains capable of functioning as designed.
I'd love to add much more but I'd like to address what I see is a common fatal flaw in assumption by many liberals that you made. Give space constraints I will include this in my next post.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 12:06pm
Thank you Katrina. The fundamental question is do we want a society that is fairly equal or do we want to tolerate extreme wealth and extreme poverty. This American would rather live in a less wealthy, but more equal society. Just because someone wants to be rich, does NOT mean that I'm willing to, nor should I be asked or expected to, accept less than equality. Supposedly American offers "equality of opportunity" but for me this isn't enough. What if I want equality MORE THAN opportunity ??? What if I want to be equal MORE THAN I want to be rich ??? I know it's hard for many conservatives and other laissez-faire capitalists to understand - but there are those of us that prize equality above all other values and possessions, even if it means never achieving vast wealth...which we know inherently won't make us exponentially happier anyway. Should one work for a living, if able, certainly. No argument there. Business and Corporations certainly have a place and role in our society, but business and corporations should exist to serve the People and the Society, not the other way around.
Remember even Republican Dwight Eisenhower had a 90% marginal tax rate and we also had the largest and most stable Middle Class in world history from the 1940's to 1980 as a result of the continuation of FDR's progressive policies.
It's time to tax the rich aggressively and redistribute the spoils of our capitalist system to the people that created that wealth in the first place. The only thing the Reagan-Bush Revolution did for me was make me realize that I am a Democratic Socialist.
Posted by jaynarey at 04/14/2009 @ 12:07pm
There is no question that we urgently need a new generation of taxes that that are perceived as legitimate, that are aligned with the new global realities, and that interfere as little as possible with the functioning of a competitive economy. In this respect I have argued for the following two new taxes:
1. The Intellectual Property Right tax: Society, for many good reasons, has decided it needs to award and defend intellectual-property rights. The downside is the creation of temporary monopoly rights that can be overexploited. Also, awarding these rights impose on society the obligation to defend them, which costs money.
As it does not seem fair to assess taxes on a business venture that has to compete in the market without any kind of protection at the same rate than projects that have been awarded intellectual-property rights, there should be a special tax levied on all profits generated from intellectual-property rights.
2. The keeping the big lean tax: There is nothing wrong with a business striving to obtain a large market share but while its market share grows for all the good reasons and for the benefit of society, there is unfortunately also an accumulation of market power that can acquire monopolistic characteristics with negative results for the society. Therefore there is also a need of a tax that is of a progressive nature based entirely on market shares.
Posted by Per Kurowski at 04/14/2009 @ 12:10pm
Too far to your side: the US ceases to be a land of opportunity for anyone not born with a silver spoon.
The central point that YOUR SIDE is unwilling to acknowledge is that socialist policy and capitalist markets aren't incompatible except in the extreme case for each.
By excluding the middle (you do that a lot) you present the illusion that the end is near, but you have no more credibility than chicken little in this regard.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/14/2009 @ 11:54am
Continuing my points, this first statment is where I always find new liberalism to have a fatal flaw. As a matter of historical record, our system is precisely structured so that even great gaps in wealth structure DO NOT prohibit unlimited opportunity. Every year we continue to see new success stories that are literally rags to riches. Why, because you don't necessarily need great wealth in order to create wealth in our country. Did it take great wealth to produce YouTube, or Facebook? How about the myriad of new products that are unique or just faddish that produce near instant wealth?
I have many Hispanic tax clients who barely speak English. Some are illegal to this day. but they came here, started working for someone else; saved their money by living in a group and then starting their own landscaping business or independent truck driver. Maybe they aren't wealthy, but they are already living the American dream that brought them here. And they started with nothing. Now they have homes and cars and employees. That is success. And they did it without socialist program help.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 12:13pm
The revolutionaries who fought and died to establish democracy in America did not do so to create an American Aristocracy. But an American Aristocracy is what we have. How did this happen. After the Civil War the Supreme Court granted personhood/citizenship to corporations. A disastrous series of decisions upholds this error in judgment and continues to make flesh and blood citizens subservient to corporate "citizens". The result? Second class citizenship for people and a democracy not worthy of its name. Google POCLAD for more. Our "rights" are "shared" by corporate behemoths/multimillionaires with billions to twist democracy to their liking. And they have been very very good at it. Corporate Media is the Crown Jewel of corporate "citizenship" at work. It gives the impression of free speech without actually being a means of expressing free speech for real citizens. Which is why we have financial networks but not one union network or show. This is the inevitable result of Supreme Court decisions that have undermined the intent of our founding documents and the cause for which our soldiers fought. No soldier in any of our wars fights to preserve the property of the wealthy. They fight for democracy. We have a choice to make. Either we drift toward the Latin American Model (LAM) with gated communities of the very rich or we can emulate the European/Scandinavian Model (ESM) with high taxes, yes, especially on the rich but with real benefits for the majority of citizens. The LAM will require a police state to maintain itself or armies of mercenary soldiers prepared to kill to protect the property of the rich or we can become an economic as well as a political democracy where the benefits of democracy have real and tangible results for all of our people
Posted by demslogger at 04/14/2009 @ 12:27pm
"As a matter of historical record, our system is precisely structured so that even great gaps in wealth structure DO NOT prohibit unlimited opportunity"
man, did i already give my quote of the year? because this statement is simply amazing. and how can opportunity be "unlimited"?
"as a matter of historical record"? you have got to be kidding. clearly, when you say "our system" you conveniently leave out that said "system" was put together by wealthy, european white males, descended from wealthy families, landed gentry, property owners, slave owners, etc.
you left out:
*women
*blacks
*chinese
*mexicans
*native americans
women had zero opportunities until about 100 years ago. and blacks had near-zero opportunities until about, what, 40-50 years ago? and to talk about native american opportunities?
"I recognize that there are some on the left like yourself who do appreciate capitalism and it's opportunities"
socialists do also "appreciate" capitalism, btw. though i wouldn't use that word.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:32pm
"or we can become an economic as well as a political democracy where the benefits of democracy have real and tangible results for all of our people"
but that is not what the so-called "christian" antisocialist wants. he wants it all to himself.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:35pm
According to the published data the "wealthy" pay 86% of all taxes but have 94% of the nation's wealth and income. The proposal that the tax rate for this dfemographic should pay at a rate of 39.5% would cause the "wealthy" to pay 91% of all taxes, so they will still be getting a good deal. The notion that it is only the rich that provide jobs is totally flawed as most of the new jbs ar created bt small businesses whose owners rarely earn over $250K. Most of the wealthy provide hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas, not here in America. This policy is to enhance their wealth while the average American is seeking a virtually unobtainable job with a decent wage. At the same time these same wealthy capitalists want to cause the demise of the trade union movement that was responsible for creating the middle class. So, if we cause them to pay a fairer share of the taxes we will not hurting anyone at all. From where I satnd a net income of $1 million is more than I could spend without the help of my entire family and all my friends, so why would anyone feel sorry for them?
mphotographer362
Posted by mphotographer at 04/14/2009 @ 12:47pm
"the notion that it is only the rich that provide jobs is totally flawed as most of the new jbs ar created bt small businesses whose owners rarely earn over $250K"
"rarely"? try less than 1% earn more than $250,000.
"so why would anyone feel sorry for them?"
you should feel very sorry for anyone who cannot afford that third property. so painful.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:51pm
I'm all for bootstrapping and personal responsibility, but you're still trying to blame anyone who isn't successful for 'not trying hard enough' regardless of their situation OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE TRYING HARD ENOUGH.
I don't think able-bodied workers with jobs need socialist programs. People who CAN'T work or CAN'T find a job (for lack of jobs, not for lack of trying....ask the millions who've found themselves here since last Sep) DO need the minor amount of assistance that will let them get back into the game and contribute to society as I am.
I'm not arguing that we all deserve the same lot in life (Marxism), but that we all deserve a REAL chance to succeed. If you can't see that the deck is stacked in favor of people with money and power in this country, you're simply being willfully ignorant.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/14/2009 @ 12:28pm
Nowhere have I made any statements blaming anyone who isn't successful. that is due to any number of factors, some out of the control of the individual, some by choice.
I have also not argued that everything is completely equal and fair. It isn't intended to be just as life isn't always equal or fair. If someone has advantages because of family background, so what?
My own family had a very succesful history for hundreds of years in this country until my father and his alcoholism. He was unable even to be sober enough to save the family inheritance from being stolen away from my grandmother. That's not fair; but it's life and you just have to be adult enough to accept it and move on.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 1:02pm
I have many Hispanic tax clients who barely speak English. Some are illegal to this day. ----Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 12:13pm | Wait a minute!
So you engaging in business dealings with people YOU KNOW are in this country illegally...and not just "business" but FEDERAL INCOME TAX procedures....
and not only making money off of the dealings, but failing to report them to the Immigration Service??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!??!?????!!?!!!????
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 1:04pm
ROOT CAUSE -- Paid actors running a make believe government
Actually over 200 years of disaster, tax cuts for the rich every step of the way.
"Why waste my time getting involved when a majority want no change," this is the frame of mind of most who would join our cause.
But protests worldwide are getting bigger and better, its the wave of the future and time is on our side, that's what I always say.
Posted by Alabama.John at 04/14/2009 @ 1:14pm
We need a real progressive income tax. We will make a small amount of progress under Presdient Obama and this country, but it likely will be after the transitional figure of Obama that we can rebuild a more just economy with fair taxation in which the wealthy finally pay their fair share.
Posted by TomWells at 04/14/2009 @ 1:22pm
"or we can become an economic as well as a political democracy where the benefits of democracy have real and tangible results for all of our people"
but that is not what the so-called "christian" antisocialist wants. he wants it all to himself.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:35pm
Nonsense. I'm not even attempting to create wealth. I live on less than 25k per year. And when I retire in less than 2 years, I will live on less than that.
But I want my children and mostly now my grandchildren to have the opportunities that I had without a massive all controlling socialist govt.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 1:29pm
So you engaging in business dealings with people YOU KNOW are in this country illegally...and not just "business" but FEDERAL INCOME TAX procedures....
and not only making money off of the dealings, but failing to report them to the Immigration Service??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!??!?????!!?!!!????
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 1:04pm
Mask, you know that I'm of a contrary opinion on illegal immigrants who are in this country than most conservatives.
Making money off of them? Right, I save them 10 times or more what I ever receive because I help them keep from being ripped off by those who could care less. That's why I have such a high referral business. I have clients who send their taxes to me from 4 other states besides those here in California. I charge lower than most and give free business advice and even help them file various business and personal needs.
And I'm helping them participate in the system and be productive. instead of slamming me, an objective person would recognize the good I'm doing for others.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 1:36pm
" that I had without a massive all controlling socialist govt."
antisocialist is easily the dumbest person here. anyone, and i mean ANYONE, who thinks our government is socialistic HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT!
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 1:43pm
antisocialist,
You said "......Well, without this system, the US would never have grown to be the largest, most productive economy in the history of mankind......."
A lot of the far left on this site (not all, in case Ficheye is monitoring my discourse, but many) think opposite.
Leftist "Historian" Howard Zinn, who writes for The Progressive magazine (and website) thinks on balance the American experience and existence has had a negative effect on mankind.
They see evil in anything that is oriented towards business growth, because they are fixated on what happens to the wealthy under those circumstances.
They pay no attention to the people who have jobs and opportunity as a result of that, or that business growth creates opportunity for those who try to pursue it.
Off of the subject, but much the same thing, some on the left are willing to commit American military forces to any kind of humanitarian mission, but the minute there is a mission that comes about because of a need to protect American national interest or security, then they smell a rat and think that is wrong! Even if there are plenty of humanitarian aspects to it, the left sees it as wrong.
They live in a constant class warfare mentality that focuses on the concept that somebody is screwing them, or they are speaking out on behalf of somebody they feel is being screwed, rather than the more productive approach of helping people realize this is a land of opportunity and growth and people should strive for that.
The leftist definition of opportunity seems to be that opportunity is when a leftist savior declares people are being economically screwed and the leftist will impose penalties (such as tax) to fix that.
Darladoon is a prime example of what I mean.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 2:20pm
antisocialist is easily the dumbest person here. anyone, and i mean ANYONE, who thinks our government is socialistic HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT!
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 1:43pm
I'm beginning to wonder if there are any moments that Darla is not stoned out of her mind; or maybe she lost her mind years ago.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 2:24pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 1:36pm
I'm not "slamming" you, Larry. I'm merely SHOCKED.
And just wonder how your fellow conservatives of the nativist stripe feel about somebody FACILITATING illegal immigrants in participating in "our" economy?!?!?!??????!?
But, hey, I got no problem with it.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 2:25pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 2:20pm
Curious, SJCHER, how you know SO much about "the Left"....
but so little about American history? Like, say, what the economy was like in 1955?
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 2:27pm
Hey Christians, I guess there are laws for some, that others cannot see: Jesus, in Matthew 7:12, said "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
Sounds like a peaceful way to live.
Posted by denim39 at 04/14/2009 @ 2:28pm
"I'm beginning to wonder if there are any moments that Darla is not stoned out of her mind; or maybe she lost her mind years ago."
anti, please define "socialism" and why the united states fits that definition.
(this ought to be funny)
"The leftist definition of opportunity seems to be that opportunity is when a leftist savior declares people are being economically screwed and the leftist will impose penalties (such as tax) to fix that."
i would guess this person (maybe) has a high school education, probably less though.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 2:44pm
there is no specific tax rate that is "fair" or "right" in contrast to an alternative rate a few percentage points higher or lower. If the government budget was balanced, or if programs were bloated and could be cut, raising tax rates would not be justifiable on some moral argument. The government needs additional revenue, to fund existing programs and new programs like health care that the electorate endorsed in its election of Obama and a Deomocratic House and Senate. The income levels whose tax rate is being raised can more than afford the relatively limited tax increase.
Posted by gren at 04/14/2009 @ 2:59pm
Mask,
Part of the answer to your question is that the most important moments or events in American history are not defined by what you fixate on.
Apparently there is something about the economy in 1955 that you feel supports some point you want to make, regarding taxation.
Since the original issue at hand was the leftist claim by The Nation that tax rates are not fair now, even though the wealthy pay most of the tax now, it is hard to see why what happened in 1955 matters.
I did catch a remark by somebody up above that said that the tax rates on wealthy were high in 1955 and "nobody complained".
That does not infer that it would be practical to go back to that, just to satisfy leftist class warfare belief.
Tax cuts by JFK/LBJ, and by Ronald Reagan, and also George W. Bush spurred economic growth.
So if the rates were high in 1955, which must be since you are fixating on that, that does not mean that it makes economic sense to go back to that.
But as I have said above, some of the left sees this in an emotional vien that is divorced from economic concepts.
So there is your partial answer. I can not come up with more of an answer right now because there is one element of American history that I am totally stumped on and that has put my mind on hold.
I have not received any information to support the concepts put forth that WXYZ television in Detroit, Michigan (I am not aware of any Detroit, Massachusetts) is biased towards Israel in it's news coverage.
Someone, (perhaps it was you?) owes me this information and has not provided it.
Until this ultra-important issue is clarified in my mind I have limited ability to understand economic conditions in 1955.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 3:11pm
"I have limited ability to understand economic conditions in 1955."---Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 3:11pm
Yep...that's what I said. Thanks.
BTW, Paul Krugman (Boo!!!! Hiss!!!!) made a similary humorous statement today. He noted that you guys attack Obama for "socialism" when he proposes letting taxes on the rich go to a level...
TEN PERCENT LOWER than it was during most of Reagan's term in office!
Who knew the Gipper was a Commie!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 3:14pm
I'm not "slamming" you, Larry. I'm merely SHOCKED.
And just wonder how your fellow conservatives of the nativist stripe feel about somebody FACILITATING illegal immigrants in participating in "our" economy?!?!?!??????!?
But, hey, I got no problem with it.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 2:25pm
I'm not concerned with how they feel. My views changed when I re-read Deuteronomy chapter 10.
"For the Lord your God is the God of gods and Lord of lords. He is the great God, the mighty and awesome God, who shows no partiality and cannot be bribed. 18 He ensures that orphans and widows receive justice. He shows love to the foreigners living among you and gives them food and clothing. 19 So you, too, must show love to foreigners, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.
So, I began teaching that while it is not right to disrespect our borders, once here, Christians have an obligation to help strangers.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 3:21pm
Mask,
When you are quoting somebody and you are only quoting part of their sentence, then normally the convention to do that I believe is to put some dots in front of the first part, or after the end of the quote, such as
".....I have limited ability....."
That way the reader knows that the quote is part of a larger sentence, and that can put the reader on alert that the portion quoted could be out of context without seeing the entire original sentence.
That is to make sure that readers are not misled.
You, of course, wouldn't quote anybody out of context, would you?
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 3:25pm
i would guess this person (maybe) has a high school education, probably less though.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 2:44pm
You see what happens when you try and draw conclusions while stoned, you get it wrong.
Multiple degrees and even taught briefly at the University of California at Northridge.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 3:27pm
When the Govt tries to help out the needy, the Right-Wing and Republicans call it ''welfare or social-dependance'' !
They would rather have the Rich Folks doling out titbits from their overflowing coffers, whenever they feel like it, as to who should get how much and when, and call it ''philanthropy''; the whole idea being paternalistic and self-serving in a phony atrustic way !
'Egalitarinism' is the fancy, euphemistic word for ''socialism'' !!
'' I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.''
Unknown
Posted by Mad As Hell at 04/14/2009 @ 3:43pm
Mad As Hell,
YOU have not the slightest understanding whatsoever of what Conservatism promotes.
Conservatism promotes self - reliance and self- achievement and sufficiency, with people encouraged to work to where they want to get to in life.
And Conservatism promotes that when people need help they get help that promotes them to those goals and thus they no longer need help, and also they have self-esteem from having succeeded in life.
In order for what you say to be true, you would have to replace the words "Rich Folks" in your second paragraph with "Government provided by Democrats"
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 3:50pm
"Multiple degrees and even taught briefly at the University of California at Northridge."
and for some strange reason, you cannot define socialism and how the united states is a socialist country.
because if you *did* define socialism, you would realize that.......we're not a f*cking socialist country.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 4:28pm
"Conservatism promotes self - reliance and self- achievement and sufficiency, with people encouraged to work to where they want to get to in life."
this presumes that liberals don't also believe in self-reliance. which is (obviously) false.
liberals believe in everything you say here, but it's abudantly clear that not every single individual has the ability to:
a) survive without any help whatsoever
b) get ahead without any help whatsoever
what conservatives falsely (and even naively) believe is that everyone is just like them. whereas liberals believe we are all different, and have different needs and requirements.
i mean, tell us sjchermak, if you are born with a terminal disease, or blindness, or extreme poverty, how can you expect to survive and compete with someone who is healthy, wealthy and, say, white?
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 4:47pm
"YOU have not the slightest understanding whatsoever of what Conservatism promotes.
Conservatism promotes self - reliance and self- achievement and sufficiency, with people encouraged to work to where they want to get to in life.
And Conservatism promotes that when people need help they get help that promotes them to those goals and thus they no longer need help, and also they have self-esteem from having succeeded in life...." Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 3:50pm
Unfortunately, Conservatism, like Egalitarianism, lacks a body. Don't you find it hard to find either kind of followers able to walk on water with their clay feet?
Posted by denim39 at 04/14/2009 @ 4:52pm
I am soooo excited! The Obama administration is already acting hysterical with their decision to label right-wingers as "terrorists", yet, at the same time, refusing to call those who strap bombs on their children in the name of allah to blow up innocent civilians the same thing: "terrorists"! No, those that murder in the name of the "religion of peace", are just involved in " man-caused disasters"! This is absolutely psychotic, but what about the Obama administration isn't? Anyway, we're gettin' ready to start TEABAGGING the living hell out of you treasonous, incompetent, cradle-to-grave, nipple-to-gov't ( I created that term and am VERY proud of it's use ), lowlife-loser-liberals. This has been a long time coming, and the left has never seen a movement of this size from the right. We NEED Obama! The more he attacks this country, embarrasses this country, betrays this country, and screws up this country.....will just fuel the movement against the lunatic left/Demoncats! Conservatives get things done! Conservatives carry the burden of liberalism/gov't on their backs. Conservatives are the engine that moves this economy along. We are rising up, so look out, cause you loser's ain't seen nothin' yet! Now, i understand that Janet Napolitano will probably label me a "terrorist" now, but I don't care. Fuck her, Fuck Obama, and Fuck all of you loser libs. Let the TEABAGGING begin! Better duck!
Posted by barry25 at 04/14/2009 @ 4:53pm
"Let the TEABAGGING begin! Better duck!"
yes, i will duck, as i really, really don't want your sweaty, hairy testicles covering my face. thank you.
btw, ezra klein on the tax rates:
"When you look at percentage of total tax liabilities, the rich do in fact bear a heavier burden. But it's because they have so much more money. They are not bearing a heavier burden as a percentage of their incomes. They're bearing it in relation to everyone else's incomes. Indeed, it's only because the sheer levels of income inequality in this country are frankly unintuitive that Fleischer can even write this sort of dreck. People hear that the top 20 percent pay almost 70 percent of the country's income taxes and nod their head. That's unfair! But it mainly seems unfair because people don't know the top 20 percent accounts for almost 60 percent of the national income"
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 5:14pm
"Multiple degrees and even taught briefly at the University of California at Northridge."
and for some strange reason, you cannot define socialism and how the united states is a socialist country.
because if you *did* define socialism, you would realize that.......we're not a f*cking socialist country.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 4:28pm
Read Darla, don't assume----
If we don't starve this beast now, it will demolish our constitutional republic and replace it with a totalitarian socialist state that would make Hugo Chavez proud.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 2:09pm
Only when you have your "socialist utopia", and no one is wealthy will you at least temporarily be satisfied. But that won't be the end.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 11:24pm
But I want my children and mostly now my grandchildren to have the opportunities that I had without a massive all controlling socialist govt.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 1:29pm
As noted in my posts shown above, I never said we are a socialist nation. I said I don't want us to become one.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 5:19pm
darladoon,
You are totally off base.
You either totally ignored what I said or your ideology blinds you to it.
If you look back you will see I said "....And Conservatism promotes that when people need help they get help ..."
And this was part of the larger sentence that talked about how this promotes them to self-sufficiency. They then have self-esteem and ARE ALSO ABLE TO HELP OTHERS.
You are so blinded by the leftist lie that Conservatives do not want to help people that you believe it totally. I do not think you actually know the facts and are here on this blog as an intentional liar. You just believe the leftist lie.
You can not in any way explain how government help since the creation of the Great Society promotes self- reliance. The results show clearly that it promotes the opposite. It creates people who are wards of the state. That is a cruel thing to do.
But you on the left crucify others who advocete different, and thus you apparently advocate the cruelty.
You talk about people being different, with different needs.
Of course they are. People as politically opposite as Newt Gingrich and Mario Cuomo have commented on how the current welfare system is flawed because it just is governent bureaucrats handing people welfare checks with no regard about how people are different and have different needs.
But what we see, and we see it on this thread, is that the "solution" is to raise taxes on the wealthy, to do what? Apparently to fund more of the same. More government just handing people checks to perpetuate their being wards of the state.
With your last paragraph, you then go and throw the race card. This is another standard ploy by the left.
You need some kind of eye exam that will cure your ideological blindness.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 5:21pm
here's your primer Darla. Let's see how many of these are already incorporated from the Manifesto
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
#1- SCOTUS imminent domain
2. Progressive income tax-done
3. excessive inheritance taxes-in place, only one step left- complete confiscation
4. pretty well in place
5. Can you say Federal Reserve?
6. FCC and the govt owning the air waves? Dept of Transportation
7. Enviro wackos, EPA, OSHA just to name a few
8. toss up-
9. Done
10. Done
Seems we are pretty well there Darla by Marx's criteria
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 5:27pm
"I never said we are a socialist nation. I said I don't want us to become one."
classic obfuscation!
"You can not in any way explain how government help since the creation of the Great Society promotes self- reliance. The results show clearly that it promotes the opposite. It creates people who are wards of the state"
you are so clearly operating on the level of hyperbole and conjecture that it's impossible to have a debate with you on this topic.
just at look at your understanding of an ostensible liberal epistemology: "that government help encourages individuals to rely on the government." there are numerous western countries whose existence completely rejects this argument: the one most culturally linked to our own, canada, has a very helpful government, and yet very, very few people strictly "rely" on the government in the sense you describe.
"it creates people who are wards of the state"
again, most contemporary empirical data proves the opposite is true. the more that government uplifts the most vulnerable in a society, the more stable a society is. in fact, fascist societies (and i am by no means promoting fascism as it has manifested in different historical contexts), are the most efficient of all societies in terms of health, productive capacity, bureacratic efficiency, etc. there are obvious drawbacks, to be sure, chief among them a gross threat to personal liberty and free choice, but my point is clear: with the social efficiency that results from increased goverment activism, there are some positive results. it's finding that middle ground which is tough. and our 'middle ground' is actually so far to the right now, that we actually have people (ironically) criticizing obama for reversing our tax rates to levels BELOW ronald reagan.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 6:42pm
how conservatives can possibly complain about the USA being too liberal, or even becoming too liberal because of obama, is all the proof we need to know how utterly fucked up conservatives really are.
our tax structure, our treatment of workers, our lack of universal health care, our shitty schools, everything, are the result of 30 YEARS OF CONSERVATIVE DOMINANCE.
and NOW, when obama threatens to move the country like a fucking MILLIMETER to the left, the conservatives go utterly ape shit.
now, what is so fucked up about all of this? what is so fucked up is that bush basically took a dump on the constitution, pissed on 95% of the country with his egregious fucking tax cuts, his bullshit response to katrina, his utterly mind bogglingly stupid understanding of pretty much everything, his illegal invasion of two muslim countries, all of it.....but mostly, his vast expansion of government spending, without the sense to RAISE FUCKING TAXES IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SO.
ah, but "deficits don't matter", right? suddenly, now that obama is in power, deficits are everything? what the fuck? that's total derangement!
these tea parties? total and utter derangement.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 6:49pm
"The wealthy pay most of the taxes. The bottom 50% only pay 2.9% of all income tax. The top 10% pay 73% "
Didn't you just say earlier that the bottom 60% don't pay taxes at all
"Only when you have your "socialist utopia", and no one is wealthy will you at least temporarily be satisfied. But that won't be the end."
Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 11:24pm
How many times do I have to tell you I am not socialist LVL? Didn;t you just two days ago get snippy at me for making comments about you and saying not to post like I know you. Then you go and try to tell me what MY political beliefs are LVL. Why don't you try being less of a hypocrite about this point.
"You tried this argument once before. It is not IRS data, but the personal projections and assumptions of the leftists who run that site.
None of your arguments have validity.
The fact is that since Reagan began his tax cuts, the top brackets have increasingly paid the burden of taxes in this country.
It doesn't matter a single iota that they accumulated more wealth. That is a strawman argument to the central argument. "
First of all, can you disprove the data? Because if you have no proof that the data is false then it doesn't matter who posts the data. Does that mean any data you EVER post from a right wing sight is worthless? Because I will use that every single time you post an article by a right wing poster. Those aren't projections because they are not future revelations they are past data compiled into a table so you need to be able to disproce their numbers.
Second the argument is not a straw man. For the thinking individual. If your income has increased at
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/14/2009 @ 6:52pm
a much faster rate than the income of EVERYONE else then your share of that tax bracket is going to increase. If the middle class grew in size or income while everyone else stayed stagnant then their share of the taxes would increase. The upper class has increase it's amount of money while everyone else has stayed steady or retreated in income which means they pay the same or less in taxes. It has very little to do with the percentage and more to do with the massive increase in funds of the upper class.
Which has everything to do with your argument unless of course you want just ignore it because you have no real counter argument so you just call it irrelevant instead of proving it wrong.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/14/2009 @ 6:55pm
darladoon,
OK I get the point...Your liberal (and I don't mean in the political sense) use of the f-word kind of highlights your frustrations with Conservatives who can not see the "truth" and the "obvious" like you do.
You are certainly doing your job as a liberal, you have just invented a new kind of tax.... the F###### TAX.
Of course, a lot of people refer to the tax they have to pay that way also, but apparently for reasons opposite what you believe!!!
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 7:19pm
"The upper class has increase it's amount of money while everyone else has stayed steady or retreated in income which means they pay the same or less in taxes. It has very little to do with the percentage and more to do with the massive increase in funds of the upper class."
and you'd think middle class conservatives would implicitly understand how this might create problems (most of which we are now witnessing), rather than heap all of this criticism on obama, who merely (and very recently) inherited the problem.
bush destroyed the country. everyone knows that. he was a nitwit, a buffoon, who staffed his entire team with corporate hacks (obama has kept some of them). who sucked the holy mantra's cock of more and more tax cuts. and plunged us into an impossible debt.
and now (!) all of that spending is a problem (even though, again, the bailouts began last year).
the hypocrisy is blatant and staggering.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 7:25pm
darladoon,
Apart from my attempt at humor, you would do well to read 2 books.
Reason to Believe, by Mario Cuomo
To Renew America, by Newt Gingrich
These books, by 2 political opposites, mention the thing I talked about regarding why the current welfare system fails the people it is supposed to help.
Mr. Cuomo, unfortunately, does not seem to grasp part of his own book - he points out what I mentioned in one of his chapters but that discussion does not seem to bubble up into his main conclusion about things, which are more along the lines of what you believe.
But the actual problem is pointed out by Mr. Cuomo in his book, even if he himself does not grasp what he himself wrote.
Those concepts totally refute what you say. You can spin around and froth and vent all you want, all it means is that you are in denial of some kind.
You mention "shitty schools"... this was caused by Conservatism? How so?
Schools are under local control. Some schools have plenty of money, there are some schools that are short of money. Some schools spend the money they have wisely, others waste it in the school bureauacracy. You can not apply a canned template about school funding and declare that schools are short of money.
You just said they were "shitty" but that is what liberals normally cite. Lack of money, blameable on Conservatives.
-- Kansas City, Missouri was required to spend millions on new infrastructure, then test scores went down.
-- Kids behave like kids, and need to be disciplined some time. Teachers can no longer do this in public school. How is this the fault of Conservatives?
-- New educational theories have resulted in worse reading scores. In some places grading is seen as unnecessary. How is this the fault of Conservatives?
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 7:33pm
How many times do I have to tell you I am not socialist LVL? Didn;t you just two days ago get snippy at me for making comments about you and saying not to post like I know you. Then you go and try to tell me what MY political beliefs are LVL. Why don't you try being less of a hypocrite about this point.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/14/2009 @ 6:52pm
Not a socialist?
Do you support mandatory govt run education?
Do you support required govt run retirement (ie Social Security) with no option for privatization?
Do you support the Federal Reserve?
Do you Support progressive taxation?
Do you support redistribution of wealth?
Do you support heavy estate taxes?
Do you support having the FCC control the radio and television airwaves?
Do you support having the Dept of Transportation control trucking and rail transport in this country?
Do you support a reduction in rural populations with a greater emphasis on urban living?
If you answer yes to most or all of these, you are a marxist.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 7:44pm
OK,
This is a timely article I just found. (Mask it is 8:40 pm and I just found it I did not hear it sometime between noon and 3pm EDT)
This article contains comments from someone who grew up in the Soviet Union and say the same things are happening here.
This guy ought to know! He lived through it.
This is been part of the debate on this thread, with the leftists pooh-poohing the idea that Obama is moving us toward socialism. (that is, those leftists are happy about that but are trying to hide that fact, as opposed to those leftists that are openly grateful and happy about it)
Of course this will feed into another recurring theme on this website - Mask's obsession with Rush and his fixation that Conservatives (or at least me) are mind numbed robots taking direction and instruction from Rush. So be it, I would be self-censoring myself not to include an article from Rush's website when I feel it is pertinent to the topic.
Victor Saw This in Soviet Russia April 14, 2009 http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ home/daily/site_041409/ content/01125112.guest.html
(this link may contain spaces that need to be taken out)
P.S. Mask - if it will make you feel better I will confess... Rush called me and was really angry and upset with me and chewed me out.... he said "Why haven't you posted that article from my site onto The Nation website yet? I will take away your free meals at Ruths Chris if you do not get the article up there ASAP"
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 7:47pm
"Not a socialist? Do you support mandatory govt run education? Do you support required govt run retirement (ie Social Security) with no option for privatization? Do you support the Federal Reserve? Do you Support progressive taxation? Do you support redistribution of wealth? Do you support heavy estate taxes? Do you support having the FCC control the radio and television airwaves? Do you support having the Dept of Transportation control trucking and rail transport in this country? Do you support a reduction in rural populations with a greater emphasis on urban living?"
--none of these would make you a socialist.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 7:50pm
--none of these would make you a socialist.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 7:50pm
All those are straight from the Communist Manifesto Darla. So I guess you better curl up and re-read Marx tonite.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 7:53pm
sjchermak, who said anything about welfare? we're talking about a progressive tax structure.....in any case, what do you consider "welfare"? social security? health care? any public assistance whasoever?
and why is welfare the program that just has to get cut? why is that considered "wasteful spending"?
you know, there's currently a program in denver to deal with homeless alcoholics. serious alcoholics who end up in the emergency room like every other night.
there was one man who cost the city like $40,000/month with his illness. and instead of making life worse for him, they actually got him an apartment and a full-time nurse. and guess what? it's CHEAPER to do this, than punish him.
so, all you fiscal conservatives, are you for this type of program, or for more and more deficits?
OR, do deficits even matter? (you love reagan, right?
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 7:57pm
"All those are straight from the Communist Manifesto Darla."
marx never said those things, dude.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 7:58pm
Now, where are the really good, juicy `leaks'....to find out who are the "about 100" UBS clients under criminal investigations for tax evasion? Is it possible these are all folks who didn't past muster for Magic to appoint to some Gubber jobs?
==================================
Guilty plea expected in UBS tax-evasion case
Authorities say there could be a series of prosecutions of American UBS clients for tax evasion.
Last Updated: April 14, 2009: 12:32 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A UBS AG account holder is expected to enter a guilty plea on tax charges in Florida Tuesday, in what may be the first such plea by a client of the Swiss bank in a U.S. tax-evasion probe, a U.S. Justice Department official said.
"This could the first (guilty) plea of a client," the official said. The case is in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, she said, but she did not disclose the defendant's name.
UBS in February acknowledged that it helped U.S. clients conceal assets from the U.S. government. It agreed to pay a $780 million fine and identify some of its American clients. Trouble in tax paradise
U.S. authorities last week charged Florida-based accountant Steven Michael Rubinstein in the first of what they said could be a series of tax-evasion prosecutions of American UBS (UBS) clients. A Ft. Lauderdale judge ordered Rubinstein held pending a bond hearing Tuesday.
Rubinstein was charged just hours after the New York Times reported that the Justice Department had opened about 100 criminal investigations into wealthy American UBS clients.
The guilty plea would come one day before the annual April 15 deadline for filing income tax returns in the United States.....
Posted by Happy at 04/14/2009 @ 8:41pm
Dear "Mad as Hell,"
Rick Crawford of the University of California-Davis attributes your quotation to none other than ABRAHAM LINCOLN. Here is a lengthier passage, to provide context for the words you quoted, which shall appear below in capital letters:
"It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN ENTHRONED AND AN ERA OF CORRUPTION IN HIGH PLACES WILL FOLLOW, AND THE MONEY POWER OF THE COUNTRY WILL ENDEAVOR TO PROLONG ITS REIGN BY WORKING UPON THE PREJUDICES OF THE PEOPLE UNTIL ALL WEALTH IS AGGREGATED IN A FEW HANDS AND THE REPUBLIC IS DESTROYED. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
The passage, Crawford writes, appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
Source: http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html
Thank you kindly, "Mad as Hell," for digging up this gem from our country's past. As I'm admiring it, let me remind the conservatives on this thread that we liberals really do not hate America. We just love different parts of it.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2009 @ 8:50pm
darladoon,
Do not lecture me about programs such as the one you described in Denver.
You do not know what you are talking about. I have some insight into how government can fail in a situation like this.
It is not personal to me or any family member, but I have insight I am not at liberty to discuss.
This of course gets all kind of comment from you or Mask or whoever that ha, ha, ha, I am guilty of truthiness - I make statements I do not want to back up.
Ficheye will probably feel the need to hop in and comment now.
It does not matter - that BS comes back anyway, I have found when Conservatives paste links to articles on this site the libs will then proclaim them invalid.
But YOU ARE WRONG - YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
With regard to you, I would have to ask, do you live in an environment where the only people you ever come across are other libs?
Are the only Conservatives you have ever interacted with those you argue with on this site?
Do you ever get any exposure whatever to anything other than the near-Communist BS you are intoxicated with?
You are so totally programmed into the mindset you have, there has to be some explanation for it.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 9:29pm
If you answer yes to most or all of these, you are a marxist.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 7:44pm
HAhahahahahah. You're hilarious LVL. You think that YOU get to define what a Marxist is by your standards. This again is your opinion LVL. Nothing more. You are trying to pigeon hole me into what YOU think I am. Yet you are displaying a complete attitude of hypocrisy because you ask that people don't do the same to you. You're definitions describe I would say MOST Americans. Most Americans are fine with most of the things you described so does that mean most Americans are Marxist?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/14/2009 @ 9:37pm
Out of humor I am going to answer all your questions.
"Not a socialist?" Nope
"Do you support mandatory govt run education?" I think there should be government education available yes, kids should not be forced to attend school and there should be private options as well.
"Do you support required govt run retirement (ie Social Security) with no option for privatization?" No, you should have the option to use a private company if you want.
"Do you support the Federal Reserve?" In theory, yes, what is the alternative? If you can present a workable alternative I will be happy to support it but as of now the Federal Reserve is a necessary evil in my mind.
"Do you Support progressive taxation?" Yes. But if you could come up with a solution that would cover all our governments expenses while not screwing one group of people I'm all ears and is practical to switch to I'm all ears.
"Do you support redistribution of wealth?" Nope.
"Do you support heavy estate taxes?" Not particularly.
"Do you support having the FCC control the radio and television airwaves?" As opposed to who? You want the airwaves to be privately owned? I am for completely free airwaves the problem is then it all gets privately bought and then there is no such thing as freedom of the message. Right now all you have to go through is the government, if it were privately owned you deal with a throttling of the message people are trying to get out.
"Do you support having the Dept of Transportation control trucking and rail transport in this country?" No, I support them regulating it but let it be privately owned.
"Do you support a reduction in rural populations with a greater emphasis on urban living?" Nope
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/14/2009 @ 9:47pm
That's the problem LVL, the world is rarely black and white so you can't pigeonhole people the way you like to. Only the ideologically insane and the partisan believe the world is either one way or another with no in betweens. So I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you think if people don't fit into your narrow window they must be a marxist. Problem is I don't fit in your narrow window and once again have proven yourself a hypocrite, for trying to tell me what I am and pretending as if you know anything about me, and ignorant, of peoples actual views.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/14/2009 @ 10:10pm
Notice most of my answers are no's and all of the yes' are maybe's unless you can come up with a better alternative. I don't have a political ideology LVL. I am not partisan. I am a pragmatist. I am for what works, I am not for forcing the square peg through the round hole. I support things contingent upon if something better arises. That's what you don't get because you have so far proven yourself to be inflexible and partisan.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/14/2009 @ 10:13pm
"All those are straight from the Communist Manifesto Darla."
marx never said those things, dude.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 7:58pm
Poor sweet Darla, wrong again.
http://tinyurl.com/48r54
<Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.>
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 10:41pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 7:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
- - Do you support mandatory govt run education?
Yep - as did George Washington, Noah Webster, and Benjamin Franklin. I don't believe any of them were Marxist - but it doesn't surprise me at all that Larry thinks they are.
.
- - Do you support required govt run retirement (ie Social Security) with no option for privatization?
The most successful govenment program ever devised, firmly supported by that great Marxist - Ronald Reagan.
.
- - Do you support the Federal Reserve?
Created by Senate Republican Nelson Aldrich and close friends J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller - all Marxists according to Larry.
.
- - Do you Support progressive taxation?
An idea brought to us by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations - another of Larry's Marxists.
.
- - Do you support heavy estate taxes?
Estate taxes go way back - nearly 1,000 years BC - those Marxist Egyptians. In this country, that Marcist Abe Lincoln imposed them to help pay for the Civil War. The modern estate tax came into being in 1916 to pay for WWI.
.
- - Do you support having the FCC control the radio and television airwaves?
The for-runner to the FCC was the Federal Radio Commission - the first members appointed by that noted Marxist, Republican Calvin Coolidge.
.
- - Do you support having the Dept of Transportation control trucking and rail transport in this country?
The Dept of Transportation - first envisioned by Thomas Jefferson's Treasury Secretary, finally came into being in LBJ's presidency. Actually modeled on the FAA, which became a part of DOT. FAA signed into being by Eisenhower - oh that's right - Larry's John Birch indoctrination kicking in here.
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 01:40am
Larry sees Marxists EVERYWHERE!!!!!!
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 01:40am
Larry sees Marxists EVERYWHERE!!!!!!
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 01:40am
and all of it unconstitutional.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 03:00am
and all of it unconstitutional.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 03:00am
So does that mean you think all the Republican's she named including Reagan and past Presidents like George Washington were all Marxists?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 03:29am
I also notice LVL that you didn't bother to acknowledge my posts that were in answer to your socialist questions. Is that because now you know you were wrong and instead of acknowledge you're wrong you would rather ignore it?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 03:30am
LVL. I want to make one point about capitalism for you. I am not against capitlaism but I want to present you with a point that maybe you have never contemplated. Capitalism can in my opinion be one of the biggest threats to this nations autonomy and security. Before you scoff and stop reading this post I ask you to stop and think. If everything in this nation is private, then everything can be bought by countries. China owns a HUGE amount of our government and our private businesses.
If a country wants to destroy the United States they don't have to go to war with us, they can simply buy us out. They can buy Lockheed Martin, Boeing and all the other huge military providers and have an eye in our military technology. They can buy the big credit banks and use them to but a strangle hold on the American economy. They can buy the big lobbying firms and use them to put a strangle hold on our politicians.
In the modern world unregulated capitalism is truly dangerous to our country. If we allow people to buy and sell anything then what's to stop another country from buying us out? How can our economy function if China buys our major businesses and either shuts them down or just diverts their funds out of the country?
This is a topic that is never spoken of when we talk about capitlism.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 04:05am
The hardcore right wingers who preach about fully unregulated capitalism are some of the most dangerous people in the US. This recession should be a wake up call to you folks. If just a few companies in the credit market got so big that their collapse could take not just the US but the world economy with them, just imagine what could happen if a country went into this with a strategy to buyout the biggest companies and then purposefully collapse them to take the American economy with them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 04:08am
This is a little tidbit I just heard off the Keith Olbermann Show. The top 300,000 wage earners in the United States earn the equivalent of 150,000,000 American workers. If you moronic rethugs posting here can't see a problem with this, you are seriously living in a state of denial.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 06:41am
Flat tax. 17%. NO deductions. That's what we need. Everyone pays the same rate. Sounds fair to me.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/13/2009 @ 11:02am
Of course your flat tax rate would include businesses, business trips, any business purchase such as campaign donations from a business to a particular candidate since that purchase is certainly in favor of the bottom line for the businesses. In short, flat tax every friggin transaction taking place in the business world with zero loopholes.
I wonder how many rethugs would back that. By the way, the purchase of office furniture, computers, hardware, would also not be tax exempt.
Here's the problem, most people are already paying sales tax, and businesses don't, they pass it on to their customers to cover for their asses. No more tax exempt purchases for businesses.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 06:49am
Thank you Katrina. Why do we still have the boys and girls under the Klieg lights, still pushing an economy based on ping pong diplomacy, voodoo economics, and rising tides? When did a consumer economy and service economy replace an economy based on producing stuff? How do we replace a job at GM with a job greeting people at wall mart of shuffling paper and staring at a computer screen on Wall Street? How do the experts arrive at the great multiplier effect of investing one dollar in a bank and poof magically produce eight dollars in lending? Sounds like Las Vegas economy to me. Great for casinos, but not so hot for me.
Posted by julien38 at 04/15/2009 @ 07:43am
snowball666,
You said the following:
".....Cherm, it seems that you and Darla are simply two sides of the same zealous coin. Just as she is in 'constant class warfare' and can only see things through her socialistic prism...you are in constant 'class apologist' mode and only see things through your neocon, laissez-faire prism......"
The gist of what you are saying is that both Darladoon and me are operating from strict ideological viewpoints.
But, how about you.
I have picked up on something in your wording.
In your last sentence you use the word "neocon".
Where does "neocon" enter into this.
My understanding of the origination of the word "neocon" is that it referred to advisors to President Bush, that had opinons regarding the war in Iraq or the necessity to go to war in Iraq, etc.
As I have seen this term used in current discourse, I did not see any indication early on that it applied to anything else. If the term "neocon" existed prior to the whole circumstance in Iraq, I was not aware of it.
It is almost as if this is a new word or slang that came into being to describe the advisors to President Bush, and only that and nothing more.
Since then, it seems that this word, at least on this site, has morphed into another loose word that is used, always in a negative manner, to express opinions about Conservatives about any matter. Use of this by many strident leftists. I still do not see the word used by anybody other that strident leftists as a general term for Conservatives.
Not to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying that ideologically you occupy a middle ground.
But I have to wonder if that is really true, I wonder if the use of the word "neocon" betrays a leftward tilt on your part.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 10:25am
There should be no estate tax whatever! This is confiscation of personal property acquired during one's life time and it includes many farms and businesses. The only way to have a healthy economy is to lower business taxes ( our are nearly the highest in the world) and have no capital gains so that people can retire on what little they have left and to encourage investment. This administration has passed the most irresponsible budget and stimulus package in history. The public was fooled by the speaking abilities o but now see that his agenda is to change what this country into his vision of a moreee socialized nation.
Posted by Katie10 at 04/15/2009 @ 10:26am
Taxing more the most productive who provide our jobs is just plain wrong it leads to more layoffs. I have never been more worried about my country. Acorn( Obama's community organization) went into banks and intimidated them into giving bad loans. These people who got the loans are not victims they had no way of paying the mortgages. Now we have the Obama gang asking all of the responsible people to pay for them. Job loss is quite another matter and they should be helped. The liberals Frank and Dodd in Congress are hugely responsible for this meltdown and should be held responsible. Unless we get back to the work ethic in this country we will have a huge entitlement population and shrinking number working. That is where we are going.
Posted by Katie10 at 04/15/2009 @ 10:53am
So does that mean you think all the Republican's she named including Reagan and past Presidents like George Washington were all Marxists?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 03:29am
George Washington supported govt run schools? Show me a quote..I've never seen anything from Washington addressing the subject beyond his own disdain for formal education. He only had 2 years of schooling, and the rest was self taught.
Reagan was wrong on Social Security. He took the politically safe route on it like most politicians. But what you are doing is attempting to supposedly box me in as a hypocrite since you "wisely" noted that you support some of these things but "not all".
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 10:55am
The hardcore right wingers who preach about fully unregulated capitalism are some of the most dangerous people in the US. This recession should be a wake up call to you folks. If just a few companies in the credit market got so big that their collapse could take not just the US but the world economy with them, just imagine what could happen if a country went into this with a strategy to buyout the biggest companies and then purposefully collapse them to take the American economy with them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 04:08am
I don't know where you get this notion that conservatives are against all regulation. I don't know of any conservative voice who has called for the elimination of all regulation.
Can you provide a quote from one who does support the elimination of all regulation?
I said last year that Article 1, Section 8 provides for regulation. It is the overreaching, economic stifling level of regulation, especially the amount of redundant regulation, rather than effective use of existing regulation that has created problems.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 11:01am
Where do you draw the line for what is stifling and redundant regulation?
I'm willing to admit that there's probably acres between the spotted-owls and Chromium-6 well-poisoning, but where does progress end and the beginning of my nose appear?
I see some regulation as being more harm than good, but will never trust corporations to do the right thing.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/15/2009 @ 11:40am
We might start by examining from the oldest regs first as to whether they address the need.
Eliminate redundancy, and utilize what was written.
What I've seen over these many decades is govt merely adding layers upon layers to existing regulation and law rather than simply enforcing what is already inforce.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 11:45am
i think that we ought to consider putting a .5% tax on all stock and bond purchases. this will raise a lot of money from the wealthy investors who an afford it. for the rest of us, it won't be a burden because we deal in smaller quantities. say if we purchase $1000 in stocks it will only cost $5. the richer people who deal in larger quantities would pay more, which is the way it should be. rich people use the court system more than we do too, so a user fee or tax should accompany that. finally, i would like to see the anti-trust laws enforced or reconstituted.
Posted by tbadger at 04/15/2009 @ 12:59pm
Larry sees Marxists EVERYWHERE!!!!!!
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 01:40am
and all of it unconstitutional.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 03:00am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
In your opinion. Of course, you represent the thinking of roughly 1% of the far, far FAR, right-wing, tin-foil-hat, looney, fringe.
The rest of the country has long found these things to be fully Constitutional.
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 2:00pm
In your opinion. Of course, you represent the thinking of roughly 1% of the far, far FAR, right-wing, tin-foil-hat, looney, fringe.
The rest of the country has long found these things to be fully Constitutional.
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 2:00pm
Based just upon presidential election votes, Libertarian and Constitution party candidates receive far more votes than the Green Party, Peace and Freedom, and various Socialist Parties combined.
Do you consider those leftist parties part the far, far, left, tin-foil-hat, fringe?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 2:20pm
George Washington supported govt run schools? Show me a quote..I've never seen anything from Washington addressing the subject beyond his own disdain for formal education.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 10:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Well known. Just 2 examples...
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=147
"On this day in 1790, President George Washington delivers the first State of the Union address to the assembled Congress in New York City."
.
.
"After covering the clearly federal issues of national defense and foreign affairs, Washington urged federal influence over domestic issues as well. The strongly Hamilton-influenced administration desired money for and some measure of control over "Agriculture, Commerce and Manufactures" as well as "Science and Literature." These national goals required a Federal "Post-Office and Post-Roads" and a means of public education, which the president justified as a means to secure the Constitution, by educating future public servants in the republican principles of representative government.
or
Title: GEORGE WASHINGTON AND EDUCATION. Authors: Keast, Lewis Source: Education; Feb1934, Vol. 54 Issue 6, p321-322, 2p Document Type: Article Subject Terms: WASHINGTON, George, 1732-1799 EDUCATION -- United States EDUCATION & state PUBLIC schools PRESIDENTS -- United States LEARNING EDUCATION, Higher Geographic Terms: UNITED States NAICS/Industry Codes: 611110_b Elementary and Secondary Schools People: WASHINGTON, Augustine Abstract: This article focuses on the interest shown by former U.S. President George Washington on public school education in the U.S. Several... Accession Number: 21464846
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 2:25pm
Based just upon presidential election votes, Libertarian and Constitution party candidates receive far more votes than the Green Party, Peace and Freedom, and various Socialist Parties combined.
Do you consider those leftist parties part the far, far, left, tin-foil-hat, fringe?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Larry, you aren't anywhere near the middle of the road in "Libertarian" or "Constuitutional" parties.
For instance, the official platform of the Libetarian Party opposes all marriage laws, including those defining a marriage as 'between a man and woman'.
They also oppose all laws concerning abortion, stating "we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
Additionally, they oppose the intrusion of intelligence agencies on civil liberties stating "Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law."
And concerning the suspension of Haeas Corpus "We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied."
So Larry, if you are really Libertarian, you are on the farthest right 'fringe' of even that 'fringe group'.
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 2:51pm
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 2:25pm
Wow, how can I counter that proof? Oh, I know...
Lillian, your evidence is at best, 1/2 right, and I will acknowledge that.
Washington never called for a public education system beyond specialized understanding the rights contained in the new constitution, especially for govt employees. And he suggested that perhaps a national university might suffice. This is a far cry from providing K-12 general education.
I am happy to provide you with the link to his actual address as saved in the Government archives.
And you will really love this part of it
"Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is on e of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/ref/blfirstsou.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 2:54pm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/ref/blfirstsou.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Yes Larry, I already read it. And your claim regarding his reference to public education that "perhaps a national university might suffice" is, as usual for you, so a complete misrepresentation of what he actually said as to be a lie - something you do with annoying regularity.
I posted a few of the scholars who have rightly interpreted Washington's words as being in support of public education. There are more...
http://www.kipnotes.com/GeorgeWashington.htm
"These national goals required a Federal "Post-Office and Post-Roads" and a means of public education, which the president justified as a means to secure the Constitution, by educating future public servants in the republican principles of representative government."
But best to print his actual words (which, of course, you didn't do)...
"Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature."
Any way you care to dice those words Larry, President Washington was advocating government support for public education.
Nice attempt at diversion though.
BTW, my favorite part of your diversion...
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; ***to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite;***..."
(Not "any yahoo gets to be armed" but that being armed REQUIRES people to be "discliplined" and operating under a "well-digested plan".)
Thanks for noting that!
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 7:34pm
BTW Larry, you created several red herrings there. While you are spinning your wheels trying to pick nits over George Washington's support of public education, you conveniently ignore the same support from Webster and Franklin. Those 2 a little harder to bloviate against?
What about Abe Lincoln's suport of estate taxes? Your claim was that makes him a Marxist.
What about Adam Smith? He fits your definition of Marxist.
What about Ronald Reagan? You called him 'wrong' but he clearly meets your definiton of Marxist as well.
Calvin Coolidge - fits your Marxist definition.
Nelson Aldrich, J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, ancient Egyptians, LBJ, Thomas Jefferson's Treasury Secretary (his name was Albert Gallatin if you want to look him up) - they all meet your definition of a Marxist. Are you sticking to that...
...or can you just admit you let your rhetoric get a bit 'bloviated' there?
(Rhetorical question there Larry - we all already know the real answer.)
Posted by Lillian at 04/15/2009 @ 7:51pm
But what you are doing is attempting to supposedly box me in as a hypocrite since you "wisely" noted that you support some of these things but "not all".
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 10:55am
I actually only supported maybe three of the things, all maybes if you could come up with a better idea. Of course you won't acknowledge that though because you like to throw around the word Marxist as you primary argument as if it somehow is the winning phrase and for you to have to acknowledge that I am in fact not a Marxist is a mark of defeat. Unless of course you didn't bother to read my answer and see that I said no to most of them, which your condition was that I had to answer a yes to all or most of them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 7:59pm
But what you are doing is attempting to supposedly box me in as a hypocrite since you "wisely" noted that you support some of these things but "not all".
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 10:55am
I actually only supported maybe three of the things, all maybes if you could come up with a better idea. Of course you won't acknowledge that though because you like to throw around the word Marxist as you primary argument as if it somehow is the winning phrase and for you to have to acknowledge that I am in fact not a Marxist is a mark of defeat. Unless of course you didn't bother to read my answer and see that I said no to most of them, which your condition was that I had to answer a yes to all or most of them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 7:59pm
Where's the argument? I said you supported some but you want to argue it was specifically 3? Ok
I throw around the term marxist and Marxism as it applies.
What is most striking is that much of what Marx said was essential to transform from capitalism to marxism has already been implemented in this country.
Now you and Lillian may think that it is clever of you to find the gnats, but those facts are self evident. It doesn't mean that we are a socialist or communist country. I've said we are not. But there is no denying that we have in the past 100 years been on a steady path to abandoning our constitutional republic and replacing it with a form or marxism, if not outright socialism or communism.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 8:18pm
I've said we are not. But there is no denying that we have in the past 100 years been on a steady path to abandoning our constitutional republic and replacing it with a form or marxism, if not outright socialism or communism.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 8:18pm
You realize that you don't have to abandon a Constitutional Republic to become socialist right? Socialism is economic. Which is why you can have things like Democratic socialism. We are essentially a free market socialist government. We are not capitalist and haven't been since the government started regulating the economy. Capitalism calls for ZERO government input. So if you can for any regulation you support one form of socialism or another because you are giving the government the right to put it's nose in the economy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 10:12pm
I hope the fed raises tax rates on the rich people, I want to stay in the same job I have now without having to try to make more money..... I am sick of my boss who I am sure makes millions. I want some of his money. I deserve it cause he is a jerk.....
Posted by obamass at 04/15/2009 @ 10:25pm
Tax tax tax. Why not quit spending. Why doesn't Obama subscribe to his own beliefs of sacrifice. If people have to give up so should the government. I guess it's "Do as I say not as I do." Typical.
Posted by apoorspic at 04/15/2009 @ 10:42pm
I think if the govt is going to take money from our pay checks, they miles well give it to people that don't work or try to succeed or advance their lifes… That way we are all equal. If we don't do this then we bow our heads to the war mongering corporations who are all corporationy.
Posted by obamass at 04/15/2009 @ 11:06pm
Tax tax tax. Why not quit spending. Why doesn't Obama subscribe to his own beliefs of sacrifice. If people have to give up so should the government. I guess it's "Do as I say not as I do." Typical.
Posted by apoorspic at 04/15/2009 @ 10:42pm
In actuality it's not. The government is giving people what they request.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 12:04am
"I throw around the term marxist and Marxism as it applies. "
Obviously you don't. You called me a Marxist and yet I didn't fit into your category of questions. So you throw it around and don't know what your talking about. Then when you are proven wrong instead of submitting you continue to use it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 12:12am
Cccomfo1,
You said "....In actuality it's not. The government is giving people what they request....."
I can't argue with that. The people did request that, by the results of the election of 2008.
But I think what the people requested was somebody they thought was going to fix the economy.
When they find out what they are going to get besides, I think they will have some misgivings about that request.
What they will get besides is much more government control over their lives than they want or think necessary.
And what they will also get is massive spending and deficits way beyond what this country has had before. Literally just printing money where there is really no support behind the money, and where people not even born yet are already deep in debt to the government.
I saw a graph on television last night about the printing of the money, and the graph started out in the early 1900's and there was a virtually level line until about 1973 when Nixon took the monetary system off of the gold standard.
(Yes, Mask I know Nixon was a Republican)
It went up gradually and a little until around 2002, and then went up at a more incresed amount each year, but still not too steep.
(Yes, Mask I know George W. Bush was Republican and President at that time)
Now, last year it went up somewhat more.
(Yes, Mask I know George W. Bush was still President last year).
But this year, that graph spiked way upward, unbelievably so. We are now printing money that has no basis behind it.
Hopefully, people will request something else in 2010 and 2012.
You have every right to ask what is my plan. In this thread or another thread yesterday I posted a reply to crabwalk with a link to the GOP plan that was ignored.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 08:28am
Cccomfo1,
Excuse my side comments to Mask in my reply to you, but based on what I was saying it is certain Mask will be posting in (now Mask won't in order to prove me wrong!) reminding me about things, so I figure I might as well acknowledge them ahead of time.
And since I ran into the word limit before I have one more I have to add.
(Yes, Mask I said "hopefully" regarding 2010 and 2012, yet elsewhere I have said it is certain that Sarah Palin will be elected President in 2012 so the word "hopefully" is not conistent with that statement.
You have to understand, Mask, that part of my thought process is occupied with waiting for and expecting the reply you owe my on your substantiation of why you feel WXYZ television in Detroit, Michigan is biased towards Israel in their news coverage)
Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 08:34am
"When they find out what they are going to get besides, I think they will have some misgivings about that request.
What they will get besides is much more government control over their lives than they want or think necessary. "
I don't know if you saw the poll. But more government control is becoming a much more popular idea nowadays.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 7:03pm
In actuality it's not. The government is giving people what they request. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 12:04am
I did not request this. Neither did 48% of the population. How about we tax those that voted for Obama at the new rates and leave the rest that did not as they were. Seems fair. Since fairness is the MO.
Posted by apoorspic at 04/16/2009 @ 9:48pm