Richard WarnickOf the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich
Via Think Progress– Senator John McCain is running a campaign of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich:
- Asked to “define rich” recently, McCain joked, “How about $5 million.” Asked to refine that answer, McCain later said that some people “are poor if they’re billionaires.”
- McCain’s is proposing a tax policy that primarily benefits the rich. Under his tax plan, McCain’s family would get a $300,000 tax break while middle class Americans would save only $319.
- Two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes, but McCain still wants to lower the corporate tax rate–without eliminating loopholes, shelters, and giveaways.
- One of his top economic advisers, Phil Gramm, who has been called McCain’s “econ brain,” recently said that America has “become a nation of whiners” when it comes to what he deems “a mental recession.”
- As recently as last week, McCain said, “I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”
The Bush economic policy has been Robin Hood in reverse, robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. McCain wants to keep going in the same direction.
New numbers (PDF) released by the the Census Bureau this morning indicate 37.3 million Americans lived below the poverty line in 2007, a 12.3 percent poverty rate. Median household income in the United States declined every year of the Bush administration before ticking up by a mere 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, before the current wave of economic problems. At the same time, real per capita income declined by 1.1 percent.
It’s not all bad news. The number of wage earners whose total income was $1 million or more went up about 43 percent during the Bush administration. But McCain’s even more exclusive $5 million a year and up crowd includes just 0.01 percent of Americans.
Updates below
UPDATE: Will the Democrats deliver this message? Imagine a bumper sticker slogan: “If you make more than $5 million, vote Republican– they’re on your side.”
UPDATE: Brian Levine, who must be less cynical than most of us, decided to look up Senator McCain’s poverty plan. Surprise! There isn’t one.
UPDATE: Today on CNN, Wolf Blitzer used a deceptive graphic of the “average tax bill change” under McCain’s and Obama’s tax plans. But the chart only showed data for incomes of $161,000 and up, just the top 5 percent.
UPDATE: The Salt Lake Tribune has an article questioning the accuracy of the Census Bureau’s Utah numbers and making the point that they’re already out of date, and another one that points out that household incomes have yet to recover to pre-2000 levels.
UPDATE: Matt Yglesias looks at the Census historical numbers:
When Ronald Reagan proclaimed “we declared war on poverty and poverty won” he was dead wrong — poverty still existed, but the number of impoverished Americans had declined precipitously. Then, under 12 years of conservative rule, the number went way up!
…Meanwhile, if you look at the age breakout you’ll see that one reason we haven’t swung too far back to where we were pre-LBJ is that the poverty numbers for senior citizens have remained very low — thanks in large part to the fact that the elements of the Great Society that targeted seniors have basically been kept in place.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Its always fun to recite economic statistics and try to equate them with a particular president; however, you are ignoring a lot of outside factors that have influenced the changes in income distribution that have nothing to do with tax cuts etc. I suppose you could blame free trade, but then you would be attacking the solution for those who are really in poverty.
Part of growing into a world economy is recognizing that unskilled labor is going to be increasingly rewarded with less income. Likewise, those with college educations are becoming more wealthy.
Also, your statistics ignore the economic growth that occurs through tax breaks and is used to create more middle class jobs. Since higher taxes discourage this kind of growth (see the economies of Mid-Western States), what do you propose as a remedy? Is the solution to raise taxes out of “fairness?”
The tax increases you are supporting would hit many small business owners, who would otherwise have used that money to create more jobs. It is these small businesses that provide competition, innovation, economic growth, and a check on the “evil corporations.” How can you justify attacking them? Why not just change the exceptions to the tax code written in for millionaires like John Kerry to make sure they don’t have to pay their fair share? Countries with higher tax rates (Canada, Europe etc.) are dominated more by corporations and high prices than we are here. Why turn us into that?
August 26th, 2008 at 11:03 am
“The tax increases you are supporting would hit many small business owners, who would otherwise have used that money to create more jobs.”
Can you provide an example of where this would happen? This seems to be a favorite talking point, but no one ever seems to explain who these small businesses are that would be “attacked” by Obama’s tax plan.
Here’s a scenario I can imagine:
Small business owner, making $300K in taxable income. Obama’s tax plan increases taxes only on the amount above $250K. Instead of paying higher taxes on the $50K in income above $250K, small business owner creates another $50K job (he really needed the help anyway so he could spend more time with his family) and decreases his taxable income to $250K.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:10 am
… and for a bunch of stupid morons!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/26/chris-matthews-experience_n_121468.html
As far as I am concerned, McCain can have these idiots - they fit right in with the rest of the repugs!
August 26th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Don,
How about this example
August 26th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I think you also need to consider that investments don’t always pan out. Accountants can draw up numbers on a board all day long, but businesses still fall short. We need to encourage this risk taking because it drives the economy.
As a society, our business policy should be first and foremost to encourage small businesses to try and succeed and then to worry about how much we can take from them for social programs. Sacrificing growth for these programs hurts the recipients in the long run because it hurts society as a whole(just ask the Midwestern factory workers whose jobs are now being done in South Carolina and Mississippi).
Also, Obama’s tax plan increases taxes very directly on income over $102, via uncapping social security tax. This is doubled as a small business owner because you have to pay it for each employee as well as for yourself.
You also have to remember that running a small business is not an exact science. A wise small business owner would likely want to a have a significant amount of money in the bank (as a safety net) before bringing in another employee (that is essentially, a liability).
Also, the examples envisioned by conservatives are not of stagnant growth, stable, three-generation businesses. Rather, the small business owner (the one that really dominates our economy) is just starting a firm that has a vision of growing to be a player on the national market, but has an 80 percent chance of failure in the next year. He doesn’t have the means or stability to plan hiring around tax deadlines and might want some money in the bank before trying to expand. This person is hindered by the tax and growth is slowed.
Finally, our small business owner is discouraged from trying to make more than $250k (going back to your example) and thus will not take the risks to provide the growth that he could have. This situation compounded is why lower capital gains taxes lead to more revenue.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Tyler wrote:
Did you know that President Bush is the first president to preside over negative job growth since Herbert Hoover?
Relative net job growth starting with Inauguration Day, Clinton versus Bush.
Source: Paul Krugman, The New York Times.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Bob S.,
Just so I understand the argument correctly, you are saying we should allow small to medium sized business to hold on to profits so that they can re-invest them in the business at some time in the future. Is that correct? It’s defninitely a compelling argument, but here’s a question. How long should they be able to hoard profits before being taxed on them as if they were income?
August 26th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Don,
I”m not saying that at all. You asked how additional taxes would hurt small businesses, arguing that the businesses would probably just hire an additional employee.
I provide a counter argument, pointing out that sometimes businesses need the money to invest. More equipment, greater capability, etc are often needed long before additional bodies.
Nice inflammatory statement there, any small company is not making a profit, not earning a profit…but “hoarding” it as if to keep it from the rightful owners. Is that what you are trying to imply?
Also, I’m a little rusty on accounting and tax requirements, but profit usually has to be reported during the time it’s earned. Profit only comes after taxes are paid right? So any money set aside by a small business would already have taxes paid on it. The small business would just have less capital available when they needed it; forcing them to do without or borrow money.
Hope that helps.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Also, Obama’s tax plan increases taxes very directly on income over $102, via uncapping social security tax.”
No, it doesn’t. Income between $102K and $250K will be exempt from payroll taxes under Obama’s plan.
“This is doubled as a small business owner because you have to pay it for each employee as well as for yourself.”
Even if the first part of your statement were true, this statement doesn’t really make sense. First, the SBO would only pay 1.5 times seeing as how he is only responsible for half of the employee’s payroll tax. Second, if you pay more in payroll taxes for employees then your personal income will decrease, making your personal payroll taxes less, right?
I’m going to have to admit, I’m an absolute neophyte when it comes to small business tax code. Are there not already mechanisms in place to allow income to be reinvested in the business within a certain amount of time before being taxed?
August 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Bob,
I’m sorry if I’m not quite following your argument, but aren’t expenses for “(m)ore equipment, greater capability, etc.” already deductible from gross income and therefore not taxed?
Sorry if you found the term “hoard profits” inflammatory. It wasn’t meant to be. And you are right, I should have used the word “income” instead of profits. How about if I change the statement to this: How long should they be able to keep income set aside for reinvestment before being taxed on it as regular income?
August 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The time has come to face up to the ruinous consequences of right-wing economic policies. The evidence is there for all to see.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Don:
Had you incorporated the term “surge” in your analysis - e.g., surge in profits instead of hoard profits - Bob would have found your analysis far less inflammatory.
In other words, when speaking with right-wingers, it is best to use language they are comfortable with. You may also think about incorporating such terms as “compassionate” and “security” into your comments when addressing Bob S.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Don,
I understood Obama’s plan to be uncapping social security tax completely. I checked his website and was mistaken. My bad.
Richard,
I can’t figure out what you are trying to prove with your graph since job growth was going down on the day of his inauguration. But let’s assume for a second that the dot com bubble didn’t burst. There seem to be 2 distinct changes to the trend line on the chart that I would like to note.
1. Sept 11, 2001. The chart drops quickly about the time the airline industry died following these events. This makes sense and, unless you’re a 9/11 truther, was hardly Bush’s fault.
2. The 2nd change is when the trend reversed. From a casual look, this seems to be right about the time the 2003 “ruinous right wing” tax cut was implemented.
If anything, this shows Bush inheriting job loss and turning it into job gains, though it takes someone with no knowledge of public policy (or a desire to manipulate others) to try and imply that the economy during a president’s term is solely caused by him or her.
If you are going to credit the president with anything that happens during his term, how do you feel about Jimmy Carter?
August 26th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Don,
Yes, expenses for equipment bought during the reporting period are deducted before taxes and profit are calculated.
But money set aside for future purchases are calculated as profit. So if I have a business making a small profit in the first 2 or 3 years, that money has already been taxed. Higher tax rates would reduce the amount of money I could set aside for future expansion.
Income would be a better way to initially describe it, thanks for understanding. Income has to be reported when it is earned, then expense and taxes paid. Investment income is similar, taxes were paid on the original amount (profit), the money invested and taxes again paid on only the amount the investment made. Only the amount earned by the investment would be taxed, but you can see greater tax rates would also reduce that amount.
Thus any “profit” set aside for big ticket items, anything that might require more then one or two reporting periods would be subject to tax.
Increase the tax, decrease the amount available to re-invest in the business.
Consider that approximately 3/4 of all small businesses are sole proprietorships and the problem worsens. That “profit” is often their income during the slow periods or even the money needed for retirement.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Tyler– You made an assertion that tax cuts for the rich lead to job creation. Yet, the job growth record of Clinton versus Bush does not confirm this theory. What evidence do you have that the theory is true?
August 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Small businesses could use not only tax breaks, but tax simplification. Small businesses and the self-employed would benefit from national health insurance paid from general tax revenues. Currently small business has trouble offering good employee benefits, and the difficulty of finding good health insurance is a barrier to both self-employment and entrepreneurship. Small business would benefit from immigration reform. The current immigration system is broken, and that has a big impact on labor and business.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Tax cuts worked to stimulate the economy under JFK and again under Reagan. The chart you showed demonstrated economic growth under Bush after the 2003 tax cut. I am not saying that the entire growth of the economy was the result of the tax cut, but it certainly helped. Economic history and theory is on my side. If you disagree, then I think you should provide a counterexample that is more specific than the Bush v. Clinton chart that doesn’t account for world events, a developing world economy etc. Also, could you explain how a tax increase will stimulate job creation?
The Obama plan also has a historical parallel. When the economy turned to a recession, panicked government leaders passed tariffs and raised taxes. The result was a deepening depression, which has never been paralleled (except in every election year with a Republican incumbent since then).
August 26th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Bob,
Okay, I think we’re now more or less on the same page regarding terminology. So, are you arguing that income should not be taxed at all so that it could be reinvested in the business at some future date? Should this be indefinite? Couldn’t we come up with a realistic time frame where income earned in any time period could be “held” for a certain amount of time to be reinvested and if that time period expired it would then be taxed? I don’t know if this is feasible or not, but how are things done right now? Are the only options to either spend the money now or be taxed on it as “realized” income?
“Consider that approximately 3/4 of all small businesses are sole proprietorships and the problem worsens.”
I am having a hard time believing that more than very small percentage of these “small” businesses are earning more than $250K in pre-tax income. Are there any statistics that would actually show who these small businesses are that would supposedly be “hurt” by Obama’s tax plan? How many businesses are we actually talking about? Keep in mind, we’re talking about the top 1% or so of income earners in the country. How many of them are “small businesses”?
Furthermore, how does being a sole proprietorship make it worse? If they can realize $250K/year in income before being negatively affected by Obama’s plan, then shouldn’t they have plenty to “save for a rainy day” and also save for retirement?
August 26th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Tyler– I think you ought to re-check your economics. Government spending promotes economic growth, except President Reagan proved that “credit card prosperity” doesn’t last. Under Reagan, we dropped the top personal income tax bracket from 70 percent to 28 percent. In 10 years the USA went from the world’s greatest creditor to the world’s biggest debtor nation as a result of government deficit spending.
President Clinton and his able Secretary of the Treasury worked very hard to repair the damage, but then Bush came and wrecked our economy again!
August 26th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Don,
No, No, No,
I’ll go back to what I said earlier
Note that we are talking about additional taxes or higher rates on businesses, Not taxes in general.
I like your idea about a holding period for the income, I don’t know if anything like that currently exists. As I said I’m rusty on accounting and tax regulations but I don’t think there is anything like it currently.
I don’t know about any statistics showing how many would be hurt by the plan, I’ll try to find some later.
I’m not sure if I’m correctly interpreting your question here. Pre-Tax income would be gross income - prior to expenses and taxes right; so I don’t think it would be difficult at all. Many doctors, plumbers, electricians, accountants, could easily make that. Also those distributors or resellers would easily able to clear that because the cost of the equipment would be in that. Also think of people selling products, Amway, Mary Kay, etc…they have to pay for their products, sell them, then pay expenses, anything left is profit.
If you are talking about 250k of profit, then I think the hurdle gets higher true. Again, it’s not how much you make but how much you keep. If the business owners are paying more and more, not just a portion.
There is the old saying about binding the mouth of the kine that tread the grain; why keep increasing taxes on those that are paying taxes when that money can be re-invested. The re-invested money would produce more growth, more revenue.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Richard,
I agree with you that government spending promotes economic growth but is it the most efficient way to promote it?
Let’s see, people earn money, have to spend time figuring out every complicated tax laws, send the money to the government. The government has to record in receipt, hold the money, figure out where it needs to spend it, put out proposals, requires for bids, track the disbursement, reconcile the accounts, etc
Or the people could pay a smaller portion of their money in taxes (cutting those Entitlements that few on this site want to talk about) and spend the rest themselves. Which seems more efficient?
August 26th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Well, on the one hand we have right-wing economic theory. On the other hand, we have the hard economic reality of 37.3 million Americans in poverty as income inequality reaches record levels.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Hell Bob, sorry about that. I totally went astray from the original topic (increasing taxes above a certain point). Okay, so back to that point, I guess my argument about “creating a new job” that is arguably “needed” by the business in order to avoid paying taxes in a higher income bracket could also apply to investing in the business. Couldn’t higher tax rates (at higher incomes) conceivably spur economic reinvestment in the business?
As to the question, I’m talking about pre-tax income after expenses. In other words, the income that would conceivably be subject to increased taxes. How many “small” businesses would really be affected by an increase in taxes for those making over $250K/year?
August 26th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Richard,
Economic theory is fine and dandy but doesn’t explain everything.
Are there any other factors involved in poverty?
Education levels and ability?
Single parent families? Kids having kids?
Is there a location factor? Inner city, urban areas versus suburban or rural areas?
How about work ethics, culture?
Consider the entire picture before condemning the policies…why do some people not live in poverty but others do?
August 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Bob S.– If you are interested in the demographics of poverty, you can download the Census Bureau report linked above. Katie Campbell at PPI has a quick synopsis.
As I updated in the post, Senator McCain does not even regard poverty and income inequality as a political issue. The Democrats are going to have to talk about it, or nobody will. Maybe Bill Clinton can say something in his convention speech– his administration reduced poverty, while Republicans in the White House tend to screw working people and yank away the safety net.
August 26th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Bob:
I cannot help but take your train of thought full circle. You, my friend, and your family are poor and miserable folk compared to others’ standards of living. What makes you so certain that once we have taken care of the impoverished in this country, as you suggest, that those with a much higher standard of living won’t fix their sights next on you? You, my friend, need to come down off your high horse and get real!
August 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
So what taxes are least likely to inhibit growth? How about inheritance taxes on the children of the deceased with highest levels of wealth? The wealthy dead can’t take it with them, and why should those who have not earned the money reap a windfall?
Tyler,
Obama is also pretty much in favor of free trade, so he is unlikely to impose import duties.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Albert,
Sometimes I don’t know if your paranoia is real, an act or just something in between.
What are you talking about here? Is there some conspiracy to keep people down? Some conspiracy to determine if I’m living a life to some arbitrary standard and force me up or down the economic spectrum?
Compared to some standards my life is poor and miserable; compared to others I have incomparable wealth. In the end I don’t care how I compare to others, I have to answer to God and myself, No others.
So tell me a little more how others are going to fix their sights on me?
August 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Bob:
Every other word out of your mouth when speaking economics has to do with abolition of the welfare state and promoting the adage that those that earn it should keep it, without being taxed. Well, what I am saying to you in response is the “welfare state” is relative. As the rich get richer, a time will come where you will be perceived - assuming you don’t already own seven homes or more - as a welfare recipient. The taxes the rich pay will go toward building roads and bridges to ferry your tired ass in your 12-cylinder pickup truck to the gun range. And the rich you helped get rich will resent it, just as you resent now paying taxes that benefit the poor relative to your current means.
Bottom line, Bob, is be careful what you hope for!
August 26th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Bob,
In addition to God and yourself, you might consider answering to the clarion call to educate yourself.
You are engaged in discussion with some very learned people who have much wisdom and knowledge to impart.
I suggest you pay attention (and check your post for egregious mistake like ‘your’ vs ‘you’re’). It embarrassing in this crowd.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Albert,
Sorry to do this, I don’t do it often but you are lying. I have never claimed that people should keep what they make without being taxed.
I do believe in minimal government. How do I define what that should be…I look to the document that is the basis for that government- The Constitution for the United States.
I’ve stated before that any new laws should contain clear reference to the authorizing sections of the Constitution. What is wrong with that approach?
There are things the government should be tasked to do; building bridges and roads definitely fall into that area. Those items are also paid for by those that use them. Can you say the same for all of the Welfare programs? How many people always get back more then they pay in taxes yet claim benefits from the government welfare trough?
As for as being perceived as a welfare recipient; wouldn’t I have to receive welfare?
I’ve talked often about the need to take personal responsibility for ones life. I’m doing that.
I don’t mind the rich getting richer, I’m getting richer also. It is not a zero sum game- just because they make more doesn’t mean I can’t make more. Anyone can, that is the beauty of the system. How about we help people learn to use the system, instead of only depending on the system?
I don’t even mind the welfare system working as it was designed….a temporary safety net. Can you truly say there aren’t people that have been on welfare for entirely too long? Some places those people have turned it into a generational life cycle. Is that healthy for those people’s dignity?
Isn’t it more compassionate to help people stand on their own ?
Can you show where I have advocated anything other then that?
You also must be projecting emotions. I don’t resent paying taxes or helping others. I resent people telling me that they know better how to spend my money then I do. I resent the people on this board making personal attacks because you don’t agree with my politics or philosophy. It’s a mild resentment, but to me it is very indicative of the values of those arguing. There are many on this board that can argue without being personally demeaning, what does it say about those that have to or choose to resort to personal attacks?
Besides, I don’t own a 12 cylinder pickup, it’s a 6 cylinder SUV - actually we own two SUVs
August 26th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Tyler,
Are you kidding? You said tax cuts under Reagan stimulated the economy. Are you absolutly sure about that? Have you confirmed that with an non-partisan, high integrity, widely-considered accurate source.
…or one that seemed to fit with the lies you grew up with?
Perhaps then you can explain why George Herbert Bush HAD to raise taxes. Any idea Mr. Economist?
For the life of me, I wish you people would site good sources when putting right-wing talking points to music. You are part of the scam.
Bush has already proven half the country can be taken for a ride. Are you gonna stay on that hay wagon Jr?
August 26th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Wow, Cliff — I’m so ashamed that I’ve mis-typed a word or two….guess you can throw stones because you’ve never done that, right?
I enjoy the chance to discuss things here. I do appreciate the opportunity to interact with the learned and wise….as I hope they appreciate the opportunity to interact with me.
Some of us don’t consider ourself educated just because we have a degree. I have a degree and it points out how much I still have to learn. That is why I continue to discuss issues, to test my philosophy and determine if it is valid. I continue to educate myself instead of resting on the past laurels of my credentials.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I wasn’t talking about degrees Mr. Bob. The ability to learn from people smarter than you is what I’m talking about.
Its not about intelligence either. Its about the really hard work one invests in becoming really informed.
Why so defensive? Unless I’m wrong, you haven’t spent your entire life learning with a vengeance.
Guess what. Some people have. Seek them out and learn (and learn to STFU once in a while)
August 26th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I just watched Mark Warner deliver what was widely predicted to be a post-partisan, gutless, keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. Good grief. I don’t think he said one unkind word about John McCain.
Could it be that the Democrats are set to lose another unloseable election?
August 26th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Cliff,
I’m referring to your constant demand for degrees, credentials and expertise.
And I’m also referring to your comments like this:
The truly wise, I don’t count myself as truly wise, but I’m trying have found out that you can learn from anyone. Smarter or not. In your arrogance you don’t seem to get that.
I have found that I can and do enjoy learning from a great many people. I have tremendous respect for some of the people on this site. I don’t care if they are smarter then I am or not. I care about their ideas, their thoughts, their ability to express concepts.
I’m not defensive, I’m peeved at the attitude on this board as exhibited by you often, and Albert occasionally.
You don’t know me, you don’t know my life or what I’ve done or not. So your guess is wrong as usual.
Take your own advice Cliff
August 26th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Of course I don’t know you Bob. All I DO know Bob, is what you write. I hold you only to that.
You may be better informed and educated than I think, but if you are, it sure ain’t showin’ on this blog.
And frankly, I’m getting tired of watchin’ so many people workin’ so hard 2 school ya.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Cliff– It’s Karl Rove’s first rule of politics– never, ever admit being wrong. The entire right wing has internalized this.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Ummmmm … time for a new top-post photo … please.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:40 am
There’s only one solution!
August 27th, 2008 at 12:45 am
There’s only one solution!
Sorry, couldn’t resist this Reagan era song.
The first part of the song with recent video added.
Dedicated to Grover Norquist and Steven Moore of “Americans For Tax Reform”
August 27th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Cliff,
Is there a reason for the personal attack on me instead of keeping the discussion on the subject?
Perhaps it is because that is your method of diverting the debate?
I’ve noticed, and I believe that others have also, you have a tendency to do this when the debate doesn’t go your way or there are no arguments we haven’t countered.
Why is it that you feel it is necessary to attack the people who disagree with you?
By the way, nice of you to set the standard for sources
Are you going to hold yourself to it or continue to be hypocritical?
August 27th, 2008 at 5:37 am
Albert,
Based on this comment, a mistaken impression of what I said:
Would you agree that all companies, businesses, corporations should pay their share of taxes?
Would you agree that there shouldn’t be businesses that pay no taxes?
Would you agree that there shouldn’t be governmental programs that subsidize businesses, corporations, companies?
August 27th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Bob,
Some serious questions. Would you be willing to trade lower taxes on business for higher inheritance taxes?
Would you consider the military-industrial complex to be a systematic subsidization of industry by government?
Would you consider the control of the public airwaves by a few corporations a worrisome concession by the government to big business?
August 27th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I hear ya Richard. And Rove’s technique works as we have seen. One of the others is “if you repeat a lie long enough, people will begin to believe it.”
That one works well too. It works. People can be really dumb.
Perhaps I do depart somewhat from the convention thinking on political strategy on the left. I think it would be great if we could stand on the higher ground and beat these bastards, but I don’t see much evidence that works.
For sooo many years now, I’ve watched simple undisputed fact fail to convince right-wingers that they are being lied.
YOU ARE BEING LIED TO, was my mantra early on in the Bush Era. Its taken 7 long years for some Republicans, and only some, to figure out they’ve been lied to.
In my life — political, personal, and professional, I have witnessed CONSISTENTLY, liars cheaters and manipulators get ahead.
I believe once a society (Nazi Germany for example) reaches a certain point, when fear, greed and distrust of neighbor prevails, standing strong on principle doesn’t always work.
As you know from following my socio-anthropological studies, 25-50% of our species are not interested in objective facts or the lessons of empirical evidence, but rather simply demonstrating their fierce loyalty to a tribe — Bob to The Gun Lobby, Okelberries to the religious right, and you my friend to the ideal of America, that no administration, no matter how evil would deliberately fuck up the so-called war in Iraq or orchestrate a false flag operation DESPITE THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
So lets be partners in this movement. Even the good side (us) need a few mean warriors to keep the scared people awake.
As for you Bob, there is a big difference between attacking you personally, and characterizing your statements, techniques, and behavior. Perhaps your Mom didn’t teach you that.
For example, I don’t say you ARE a right-wing parrot (name-calling/personal attack), I say you ARE PARROTING the right-wing (characterization of your behavior.).
Perhaps I will top post a primer on that subject someday.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Leo,
Answer to the first depends on several factors; the level at which inheritance taxes begins. If the level of inheritance is set high enough that businesses, farms, etc are protected yes.
I am also concerned that some “rich” people use their inheritance as a way to leave an estate for their children, that right should be protected. After all, that money was already taxed once, right?
Question #2, To an extent yes. I, as you can probably guess, strong on defense. I think we need a viable, growing defense industry in the country so certain tax advantages/subsidies are needed.
Given all that, I think the WAY in which the procurement process and the contracts are structured amounts to a systematic corruption of the process. I would like to see many changes in how it’s handled.
Hope that makes sense
Question #3, is complex, but basically yes I think it is a worrisome concession.
I think that most of the laws were written and try to enforce a situation from history where there were few media outlets. I think that a major revision of media laws are required, too much stifling of free speech.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:41 am
I welcome the debate, because it’s an opportunity for me to question my own beliefs. I actually like to do this, and when it turns out I’m wrong I actually change sides. Really, truly I was a die-hard McCainiac in 2000.
Not only has McCain switched positions on almost every issue since then, but I now have to recognize that there were important things I didn’t know eight years ago. For example, I was unaware of McCain’s determination to attack Iraq and his friendship with Ahmed Chalabi. Also, unless Alzheimer’s has set in, McCain was just as clueless about economics then as he is now.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Richard,
I too enjoy the debate. I believe like you, it’s an excellent opportunity to question my beliefs. I learn from those willing to teach instead of tearing down; there is a difference.
Here is the rub as I see it, just because I learn something new it doesn’t mean that I’ll change my philosophical or political positions but some people see to expect that.
We can both have different approaches to an issue, state the same facts as the basic premises and draw different conclusions. I think that is what makes America great and strong.
There is much room for improvement in America, but this is what strengthens our country, Thesis, Anti-Thesis becoming Synthesis…..it doesn’t have to be all one side or the other.
And sometimes, just the dialog is worthwhile, even if we learn nothing new. I have enjoyed talking about the tax issue with Don, Leo and you.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:21 am
There ya go Bob. Was that so hard?
Here’s something to think about. Last night, Warner said, when we decide to do things together, we call it government.
What do you think about that?
August 27th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I think there are many things that it can be called without being a government.
If my bible class paints someone’s house, is that government?
Boy Scouts have a service project requirement for their later rank advancements, is that government?
I help my neighbor trim his trees, pick up our street, is that government?
There are many ways of doing things, I find that the government way is often inefficient and not the right tool for the job.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:34 am
IMHO Mark Warner was a bad choice to give the keynote address. The Democrats are traditionally focused on governing, which is a big reason for their incompetence as an opposition party. They need partisanship, lots of it, now. The country needs it, or people won’t know who to vote for in November. If you can’t be partisan at your own goddamn convention, when can you be?
Does anyone think the Republicans will be giving post-partisan speeches next week?
August 27th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Those are good examples Bob. Lets take the example of painting someones house.
That is a form of assistance, right?
So lets agree that assistance for those who need it and deserve it is something we should do together.
Now, lets look at a few larger scenarios.
Education: What happened before and for a long time after Brown v Board? Schools remained segregated for another decade plus. IOW, left to local politicians AND citizens, there remained a great inequality gap.
Electrification: When the people agreed that the government should help put electricity in every home. They ran miles of lines for each family farm before they ran one mile of power line to densely populated black areas on the outskirts of major cities.
The same thing unfairness happened with early state run public assistance.
So the question becomes, when a society decides to do something together, who gets to decide who gets what first, and how much of it?
This is the problem. And its a big one. If I think about this problem till my head hurts, I land on justice.
If we as a people practiced and protected same standard of justice…problem solved. But we don’t.
Sometimes it seems like the “individual responsibility” thing is a way of buring our heads in the sand as if to say, if I can get mine, why can’t you? Then we go deaf suddenly when we hear things like prejudice or “the cycle of poverty.”
Those things are real, very real. Its easy to say, I am not a racist but in the end, its still there and its shadow is injustice.
And we may choose to stay avoid that shadow, but keeps growing as more people become trapped…until we do something about it, as a group.
Democrats often use the phrase, “a rising tide lifts all boats”. The Republican counter part is “individual responsibility” or let my boat rise first, and I promise I’ll throw scraps to the less fortunate (if I like them).
THIS, I believe is was Jesus’ obsession. But progressive gov’t didn’t exist so religion was the only way to bring change. It didn’t work did it? 2000 years later, white Baptist were still lynching Black Baptists.
I think the Founding Fathers hoped that a government for the people and by the people would be our best shot…if we could keep it against such serious odds.
The Founding Fathers knew the biggest threat to such a dream was RELIGION. Thats why it the very very very first thing in the BOR.
No one is saying morality is bad, or religion by itself is bad. Its just dangerous when it traverses into the realm of justice. Remember, “justice is blind.” It is religion that is judgmental and proscriptive. Oil and water my friend. Oil and water.
Fairness and justice only work when they are distributed evenly…PERFECTLY and BLINDLY.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Cliff,
I have never said there shouldn’t be government, I’ve only said the government isn’t the only answer.
Let’s use your examples again. Think that housing needs to be improved? Put your money where your mouth is, either individually or as a group. Convince people to build houses for the poor,instead of giving them houses. wait there is a group like that called Habitat for Humanity. As I’ve learned, one of the secrets of Habitats success is that it requires the new owner to be a part of the process, to invest in it through sweat equity. This works because they found that giving people a house didn’t change the behaviors, but making them a part of the building process did. Change the culture before you change the location.
Smaller locally independent initiatives are often better then a bloated bureaucratic government program, wouldn’t you agree?
It’s a utopian dream to think that fairness and justice will ever be perfectly and blindly distributed.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Bob S. You said:
What would that law say? People with money should have more free speech?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Larry,
Do you think that McCain Feingold is a good law? Sorry, but just because people have more money doesn’t mean that they have less rights, then those that don’t have as much.
How about the current laws that involve how many stations, what type of media etc that a company can own?
I think the way the resources of the airwaves are allocated needs to be revised to make the process more neutral toward company size/resources.
I think that many of the “hate speech” laws are simple attempts to muzzle free speech people don’t agree with.
Those are the types of laws I see needing to be revised.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
It was Franklin that said you now have a “Republic, if you can keep it”, Cliff. Depends on the people Franklin figured, if it would last.
At the end of the Constitutional Convention ratification, 1787, Philadelphia, steps of Independence Hall.
He also said this;
“If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it”?
I guess we are finding out.
The first amendment is not just about religion, it is about freedom of assembly, and speech also. The only clause about religion is that there be no state one, like the Anglican church was in England. It says nothing about bringing beliefs engendered by religious beliefs into politics. It is how most ethical laws have been made since the time of Hammurabi.
Religion and thereby morality are obviously going to be codified into law by a majority. It is pretty unavoidable without the threat of persecution, which is how many people originally ended up in the New World in the first place.
Here is the whole passage Franklin wrote in a letter, to an unknown recipient.
I have read your Manuscript with some Attention. By the Arguments it contains against the Doctrine of a particular Providence, tho’ you allow a general Providence, you strike at the Foundation of all Religion: For without the Belief of a Providence that takes Cognizance of, guards and guides and may favour particular Persons, there is no Motive to Worship a Deity, to fear its Displeasure, or to pray for its Protection. I will not enter into any Discussion of your Principles, tho’ you seem to desire it; At present I shall only give you my Opinion that tho’ your Reasonings are subtle, and may prevail with some Readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general Sentiments of Mankind on that Subject, and the Consequence of printing this Piece will be a great deal of Odium drawn upon your self, Mischief to you and no Benefit to others. He that spits against the Wind, spits in his own Face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any Good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous Life without the Assistance afforded by Religion; you having a clear Perception of the Advantages of Virtue and the Disadvantages of Vice, and possessing a Strength of Resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common Temptations. But think how great a Proportion of Mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women, and of inexperienc’d and inconsiderate Youth of both Sexes, who have need of the Motives of Religion to restrain them from Vice, to support their Virtue, and retain them in the Practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great Point for its Security; And perhaps you are indebted to her originally that is to your Religious Education, for the Habits of Virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent Talents of reasoning on a less hazardous Subject, and thereby obtain Rank with our most distinguish’d Authors. For among us, it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots that a Youth to be receiv’d into the Company of Men, should prove his Manhood by beating his Mother. I would advise you therefore not to attempt unchaining the Tyger, but to burn this Piece before it is seen by any other Person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of Mortification from the Enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of Regret and Repentance. If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Bob S:
Did you really say that? You live in America in the Bush era. Did you really say that!
BTTH!
August 27th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Bob:
What hate speech laws do you disagree with?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Hate speech laws have been refused a number of times in Congress, and are not part of any codification at this time Bob.
Albert, can’t disagree with laws not on the books right?
August 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Albert,
Hate speech is listed directly as that, but as political correctness and as simply hate crimes. Can you honestly say there aren’t groups with more protection about what can or can’t be said about them then other groups?
Also, how about answering my questions from earlier?
Would you agree that all companies, businesses, corporations should pay their share of taxes?
Would you agree that there shouldn’t be businesses that pay no taxes?
Would you agree that there shouldn’t be governmental programs that subsidize businesses, corporations, companies?
August 27th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
That should be “hate speech is NOT listed directly
August 27th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Who:
If the hate speech is intended to incite riot or the like, it may be and often is proscribed by state law.
Bob:
Yes.
Yes. Even 501(c)(3) corps pay taxes of some sort.
No.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
No different than yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre Albert.
However, since their are no Federal statutes concerning hate speech, an attempt to convict someone at the state level for simply speaking politically incorrect speech, are null and void, as all State law is superceded by Federal law in this subject.
Even at the state level you would not be charged with any “hate” descriptions, just incitement.
Upon any appeal, it would end right in the garbage if you were just writing or speaking to no ill effect, in actuality.
As it should be, as it is.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Some more wisdom on faith from our American Genius, Ben Franklin.
He is after all the driving intellectual force behind our Republic.
* I’ve lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.
Speech to the Constitutional Convention (1787-06-28) Manuscript notes by Franklin are preserved in the Library of Congress.
* As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.
As quoted in Benjamin Franklin: An Exploration of a Life of Science and Service (1938) by Carl Van Doren, p. 777
“Experience is the best Teacher, and fools will learn by no other”.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Albert,
I’m going to change the business, companies and corporations to individuals, couples and families. Do you still agree?
The often repeated myth that lawmakers are dumping more of the tax burden on low-income families is simply false. From 1979 through 2003, the highest-earning 20 percent of Americans—who earn 52 percent of all income—saw their share of the federal tax burden rise from 56 percent to 66 percent of all taxes. By contrast, the lowest-earning quintile of Americans—who earn 4 percent of all income—saw their share of the federal tax burden drop from 2 percent to 1 percent. (See Chart 1 and Chart 2.) Clearly, the rich are shouldering an increasing share of the tax burden.
I think that everyone should pay into the system and not get out of the sytem (income taxes in this case) more then they pay in. That is definitely not paying their share of the taxes, right?
Of the 42.5 million tax returns that pay no income taxes, roughly 53 percent received some form of a refundable credit—either the EITC or the child tax credit. In 2004, Uncle Sam paid out about $33 billion in “refundable” checks to the families and single individuals who qualified for the Earned Income Credit and another $9 billion to families who were eligible for the child credit.
So there are people who aren’t paying anything in taxes and it’s not all millionaires taking advantage of the system.
Now, I want to be very clear here, I’m not talking about temporary aid and assistance. Get over that now, I fully support temporary programs, but want to limit them to that, understand?
Now given that how long should we subsidize people in America? Public housing, food stamps, etc?
I see welfare as contradictory to the values that we should be trying to encourage. I”m not the only one either
So if it works for businesses, why shouldn’t the same statements apply to people?
Remember, 3/4 of all businesses are small businesses employing very few people. Many of those are sole proprietorships, if we want those people to pay their share of taxes, to not receive subsidies; shouldn’t we expect the same out of everyone?
Darn, Forgot to log in.
Bob S.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Ouch, I forgot to sign in, then when I added by name to the end, my post got marked as spam.
Could any admin grab it for me?
I appreciate it.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Hey Any Admin
I have a comment on this thread caught in the Spam filter through my errors. Any way to save it?
Or let me know to repost it please
Thanks
August 28th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Thanks to who ever grabbed the post from the filter.
I may not agree with the politics, but I do appreciate the open board and courtesies the admins give everyone.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Bob:
Now just why is it that RedState and MichelleMalkin don’t extend the same courtesy? Hmmmm. I wonder what they have to be afraid of????
August 28th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Albert,
Not all people are as courteous as others. Care to talk about Daily Kos, Huffington Post or thousands of other left leaning blogs?
We could do this all day, there are jerks on both sides of the political spectrum. I’ve never denied that. Can you say you’ve never had courtesy from the Right?
This is what I really don’t understand; how you and others filter this through the political philosophy first and foremost. Here’s a hint, I’ve said the same things on conservative blogs, libertarian blogs, heck I’ve even disagreed with people on Pro 2nd amendment blogs. I expect that and it’s not a political issue due to party.
But I will continue to recognize the manners, even defend, the way this board is run. Not because it’s a liberal board or conservative, but because the admins do the right thing. That is worth noting.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Bob S:
I hate to commend you because you raise my blood pressure, but thanks for pointing out the openness of this blog to the doubters.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Huh? Bob, get real. If one so much as spells Bush’s name wrong on either of the mentioned sites, the banning is instant and permanent!
That’s the disrespect I was talking about - censorship by wingnuts afraid of the opposition voice!!!
Manners here at 1U are appreciated, but not necessary. On the other hand, towing the party line at the mentioned websites IS necessary!
August 29th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Larry,
If I’m raising your blood pressure then I consider what I’m doing to be effective :)
Part of the problem in America, in my opinion, is people don’t want their blood pressure raised. They want to go through life with other people making the decisions, other people dealing with those pesky issues, not wanting to hear any dissenting opinion -from either the left or the right.
I’ve been reading a book called “American Creation” by Richard Ellis. It’s remarkable how the Founding Fathers actually set out in many cases to raise people’s blood pressure. We need to get back to the point of having a majority of the citizens involved in the process. Wouldn’t you agree?
Albert,
Your mileage may vary at the different sites, but I’ve read way too many vitrolic comments, nasty hateful comments at those sites. And other sites. It’s a civility issue and it is not limited to one political philosophy.
That is what I’m trying to point out, when either party vilifies the other without recognizing it’s own problems, that is wrong.
As I’ve said before, there is an appropriate saying about splinters in other people’s eyes and the plank in our own.
I’ll work harder to not be disrespectful, will you call out those on this site that do the same?
August 29th, 2008 at 6:02 am
The biggest problems facing this country were caused be the Bush administration. So while the above statement may have some validity (much less than you give it), a bigger problem are the number of Americans insufficiently informed about the evil disease called the Republican party.
Christ. You guys elected an evil dry drunk, cokehead who failed at everything he did. Then after he started an illegal war and the whole world bailed on us, you RE-ELECTED him.
It is fairly clear that whatever ails this country, as reflected in THAT catastrophe, has to do with people whose strength of opinion exceeds brain size.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Folks,
Here is an excellent essay describing better then I could, what I meant in this comment
Just a snippet to get you interested, please read the whole thing.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:45 am
There you go again Bob,
You really are young. I’ve read most of Ayn Rand’s work including Atlas shrugged. She has already gone down in history as a reactionary conservative and admitted fascist.
You arn’t really going to continue to embarass yourself with your really really bad sources are you?
You wonder why I ask your age? You seem to be VERY new to the big bad world of politics.
If you wanna hang on the porch with the big dogs, you’re gonna have to earn it.
Even the big dogs like George Will and Buchannan, and Kristol don’t mention Ayn Rand.
You sit under the porch till we call for you.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Cliff,
Did you bother to read the blog post I linked to ?
Or are you just spewing out words to see them on the screen?
I linked to that blog to further explain how I felt about government assistance. The author does a very good job of describing it.
I’m old enough to know better (something about wrestling with pigs, I think it was) and still young enough not to care.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Please Bob,
I get your argument. I know it so well I could do a better job of expressing it than you do.
Your view is not entirely wrong, its just not relevant. Purely free markets don’t work. Government has a role to play.
You unhappy, malaise, uninterested trope is really about an educated informed populous. And I agree with you that people need to be more informed (yourself included). And when that happens, people like George Bush don’t get elected or even come close.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Cliff,
So what is your answer? Everyone working should turn over their paychecks and let the government decide what is fair for them to return?
How do we change the culture to an acceptable blend of assistance and self reliance?
August 29th, 2008 at 7:46 am
First of all, Barack Obama has proposed something he calls universal health care that isn’t. The good news is, he won’t require people to buy private health insurance (like Hillary wanted to). The bad news is, Obama would keep the chaotic non-system everybody knows and hates.
If Michelle Obama couched health care in terms of some people giving up wealth to help others, it shows how little she has thought about this issue. A government-run universal health care system (Medicare for all) would be far less costly and more efficient than the present chaotic for-profit disaster. If Obama was as liberal as the right says he is, he would be proposing such a system.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Richard, if tax breaks are such a bad idea, why are they a major plank in Obama’s platform?
Why does he advocate cuts when he knows that his plan would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years?
Why does he complain the McCain’s cuts don’t go far enough?
Aren’t tax cuts supposed to be bad, Richard?
August 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
jd– Um, Obama’s a politician and all politicians advocate tax breaks? Just an educated guess. Of course, since Obama is a Democrat the Republicans are accusing him of wanting to raise taxes no matter how many tax cuts he proposes. You should go re-read your GOP talking points.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Richard,
Let’s look at some of the details of Obama’s plan:
So insurance companies are going to have to cover everyone…from the 18 year old drug addict to the 85 year cancer patient but they will have to charge affordable premiums.
Who gets to decide what is reasonable or affordable? Congress or the companies that actually have experience running an insurance company.
How much you want to bet that we won’t have just guaranteed eligibility but required participation? That means a healthy 20 something year old will be forced to purchase insurance instead of only paying for a doctors visit when need, right?
More wealth distribution at the point of a 1040 and a gun. What incentive will to participate in any other programs if the government is going to be subsidizing a plan?
How has the war on poverty going…fighting poverty by subsidizing it hasn’t helped eliminate poverty. This won’t be any different.
Some of these I’m going to group together
These are just a few of the many initiatives on Obama’s site…of course he doesn’t say how he plans on paying for all them, does he?
Have any evidence to support this statement?
August 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Bob:
What do you propose?
August 29th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I agree with Bob, Obama’s plan is unfair to the poor, downtrodden insurance companies. MY plan is called Medicare for all aka Single Payer. The insurance companies will be relieved of the tragic burden of providing health insurance, and we’ll save money too.
There are whole books written about this.
There’s more. Like I said, whole books have been written.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:02 am
If we hadn’t invaded Iraq all by ourselves, (I’m thinking nobody is talking about coalitions of the willing anymore), we could have spent the same money on just about ANYTHING we wanted, including single payer health care for all, but even considering that, Richard is right: for profit, privatized health care doesn’t work.
Maybe in the mind of Newt Gingrich. Absolutely nowhere else.