Stanek Sunday funnies 9-25-11
Here are my top 5 political cartoon picks for the week.
We begin with one of many liberal complaints about the execution of convicted cop killer Troy Davis in Georgia on September 21. Regardless of the views pro-lifers hold on the death penalty, the almost universal opposition of abortion proponents to it always appalls me.
Furthermore, they disparage religious beliefs on life and death – until they come in handy – as did Tony Auth of GoComics.com. I wish Auth cared what the Pope thinks about abortion…
Liberal cartoonists also bandied about the word “innocent” in their pictorial opinions about Davis’s execution, for instance Mike Luckovich of GoComics.com, this despite evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, it’s real clear that babies killed by abortion are innocent. Do liberals really want to discuss a U.S. legal system that allows the execution of innocents?
Moving on… by Glenn Foden at Townhall.com (and it should also be noted that both Republicans upsetting Democrats in the New York and Nevada special congressional elections were pro-life, and their counterparts were pro-abortion, supported by NARAL and EMILY’s List)…
by Dick Locher at GoComics.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
Good to see the Sunday comics back!
Executions – what a terrible waste. I don’t know a good reason to have the DP in this country anymore. Maybe in the 1800’s…not now.
On taxing the rich – I think we need to do everything in our power to ensure that rich people can buy all the yachts they want, even it it results in less healthcare for expectant mothers and less eduction for our children. I mean, it will end up in more abortions I’m sure, showing that we’d rather let a millionaire keep tens of thousands more than providing healthcare access to our citizens…but seriously, the rich create EVERYTHING around here! Their goods are distributed on roads they own – their workers went to their companies universities and schools – their protection comes from their companies police force.
Oh wait.
It is a bizarre argument that the GOP has taken up – let’s punish the poor and vulnerable so that the most fortunate in society can buy extra cars.
4 likes
Comparing the death penalty to murder is totally false and disingenuous. Abortion is done for completely different reasons that murder,and not out of malice toward a BORN person.
It appears very possible that Davis was innocent.He maintained his innocence up the the very last moments of his tragic life. But I’m appalled and disgusted by the utter hypocrisy of antt-choicers, who wail endlessly about abortion yet who care ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about born children. They only care about children BEFORE they are born. After that, children mean NOTHING to the.
And please don’t give all that hypocritical B.S. about how much anti-choicers supposedly contribute contribute to charities and the so-called “crisis pregnancy” centers, which are a TOTAL FRAUD.
None of them does anything to help poor pregnant women. This is a fact.
2 likes
Oh you pro-aborts will never get it will you? Robert, Davis was not executed out of “malice”. He murdered a cop and there was evidence BESIDES the testimony of witnesses (bullet casings matching a gun he fired in another crime) that convicted him. He killed a police officer and the penalty was forfeiting his own life.
And whether you are pro-dp or anti-dp, the point of this post was the ridiculous irony of pro-aborts crying over convicted murderers while allowing unborn children to be put to death with no trial whatsoever and no defense.
8 likes
There is no irony. A convicted murderer’s humanity is not in doubt and his mere existence cannot be said to infringe upon another person’s physical autonomy. It’s perfectly consistent to support abortion and oppose the death penalty.
5 likes
Oh come on Ex-GOP, 12:58PM
You bet I hope rich people can keep buying yachts, that will keep a lot of people like those who manufacture yachts and their suppliers, yacht crews, and docking personnel, to name only a few, employed! In fact I hope Oprah buys a few more houses. Imagine all the designers, furniture makers, carpet installers, household staff, groundskeepers, and security people she would need to employ and all the taxes they would pay. Oh those eeeeeeevil rich people.
Now tell me, how does more employed people paying taxes and stimulating the local economy with their paychecks keep poor women from getting healthcare?
As for who owns the roads and teaches the workers who attended schools and universitites, is that the snivelling and whining of Elizabeth Warren that I hear you parroting?
4 likes
Hi Sydney M,
I understand there were up to 34 witnesses against Davis, three of whom were air force servicemen. Another witness was a man that Davis shot in the face prior to killing the police officer.
Oh, and for those inclined to cry “racism”, all witnesses, including the first shooting victim, were black, as well as 7 of the 12 members of the jury who sentenced Davis to death.
4 likes
Mary -
Lets just take your rationale further – lets just not tax people that make over a million at all. They create all the jobs and spend money correctly, right? We could just run a bigger deficit or we could tax the middle and lower class at double the rates.
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but we’re racking up big deficits. These big deficits came, in part (a rather large part), because taxes were cut and revenue decreased substantially. So now, we say that we can’t increase revenue? I’m just not sure what the GOP solution is here. Do we stop funding our troops? Do we stop sending out social security checks starting this month?
In Wisconsin, the legislation had the choice of taxing people at a slightly higher rate, or cutting things like BadgerCare (a health care program for the poor). They choose to cut things like BadgerCare. Do you not feel that these choices have consequences, or are you pretty isolated from this sort of stuff?
1 likes
EGV,
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but our gov’t has a spending problem, not a revenue one. How do you stop a relative who’s spending is out of control? Does your family find a means to provide him with more money or do you cut up the credit cards?
How about everyone be allowed to keep more of their money and spend it as they see fit?
How about rich people keeping more of their money and generating more employment?
Ya see EGV, the more people working the more people paying more taxes. And there is nothing a liberal likes more than taxes.
Maybe not raising the taxes on the rich will generate more business investment in Wisconsin, create jobs, and generate more taxes to maintain programs like Badgercare.
4 likes
“I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but our gov’t has a spending problem, not a revenue one.”
On whose authority do you make that claim? I’ve read credible economists who argue that our current economic troubles are caused by the government not spending enough.
“How about rich people keeping more of their money and generating more employment?”
Except when they just sit on their accumulated wealth, as many very rich people do, or spend it outside of the country? “Generating more employment” does not necessarily follow from “rich people keeping more of their money”. In many cases, it’s a huge stretch to say that it does.
3 likes
I am pro-life.
I am pro-gay rights.
I am anti-death penalty.
I am for taxing the rich more.
3 likes
The thing about taxing the rich makes no sense as long as there are loopholes. Back when there was a 90% tax bracket, no one actually paid that rate, they just hired accountants/attorneys to figure out how to shelter income. Higher rates really target that much larger group of people who make good money ($100k- $200k) but have far fewer assets(which generate passive income that is taxed at much lower rates) and don’t qualify for all the special loopholes. Just think about it. Why would those making a good living oppose taxing the Bill Gates and Warren Buffett billionaires? They wouldn’t and they don’t. They oppose higher taxes on themselves with no significant deductions.
1 likes
“Lets just take your rationale further – lets just not tax people that make over a million at all. They create all the jobs and spend money correctly, right?”
Here’s the deal. Those kind of people are pretty smart and will find a way to be successful here or elsewhere. Punish them enough and then you will have a country without them. That is the reason they are here in the first place. Their hardworking smart forbears were oppressed and exploited elsewhere, so they moved here. Without an iron curtain, you can’t keep them here.
1 likes
joan 4:11PM
Do you mean the Birdbrain of Alcatraz, Nancy Pelosi, who said unemployment benefits stimulate the economy and create jobs? Keep in mind that she is proof that botox damages the brain. The folks who say we don’t spend enough believe the government has to spend to generate any economic activity, it doesn’t suggest we aren’t already spending too much. Its usually apologists for Obama’s mismangement of the economy and stimulus money who make this claim. Its not Obama’s economic policies that are failures, nooooooo, its that enough money wasn’t spent.
5 likes
Amber,
Exactly what will be accomplished by taxing the rich more? Who are the “rich”. Do you have any idea what the rich already pay?
2 likes
I know that the rich have a ton of money, houses, cars, etc. while others are starving.
2 likes
Hi Amber,
What about the working people who have jobs provided by the rich? Houses have to be built, furnished, and staffed. Cars have to be produced and maintained.
Also, how will increasing taxes on the rich end starvation?
3 likes
Dear Jill,
I agree that opposition to the death penalty but not to abortion is hypocritical, but I also feel that it’s hypocritical for you to be pro life on the abortion issue but not when it comes to the death penalty. Either life is sacred and protected by our Constitution, or it isn’t. Pro life should mean embracing a consistent life ethic, meaning opposition to any instance in which someone takes the life of another helpless individual. Abortion, euthanasia, civilian casualties in warfare, and the death penalty all fall under this category. We should be setting an example of love for the world, not picking and choosing which lives to protect.
2 likes
Progo35,
I see no hypocrisy. I am against murder but I support self defense. Have you not heard of innocent people being murdered by murderers who escaped from “escape proof” prisons?
Would you sleep well knowing Troy Davis was loose in your neighborhood and would not a gun by your bedside make you feel a tad more secure? Also, would you hesitate to use it?
Set an example of love? Oh please. You remind me of people who think boa constrictors can be turned into loving housepets and then are shocked when the things kill a family member. Sorry Progo35, but there are people as predatory and dangerous, and like with the boa constrictor, you overlook this at your own risk.
A former police officer taught me well. He said people like this will respect only one thing, and that is you have a gun and will use it.
He also suggested a “cure” for those who oppose the death penalty. Pull a few dead bodies out of a ditch.
2 likes
Joan, please please take an economics class! Do you not understand the government has no wealth that it does not first TAKE from others? How does the government taking from businesses and people and spending it on helping chinese hookers quit smoking (that is true, look it up) stimulate our economy? I have heard no reputable economist claim the government needs to spend more. That is lunacy.
Amber, if someone works hard in college, spends 80 hours a week amassing a fortune etc… then why is it wrong for them to enjoy the fruits of their labor? Do you have a car Amber? Do you have more than 5 outfits? Well! How dare you? You don’t need a car. Ride a bike. you don’t need more than a few outfits when others have no clothes… think of the poor and starving Amber. How dare you…
Do you see where this class warfare leads? Who is to say your lifestyle wont be considered lavish (and probably is compared to third world countries). The point is that being able to work hard and keep the fruits of your labor is what makes America great. Its why people came here, started companies, invented, worked their butts off knowing they could build a better life. Do I think rich people should help others? Yes. But for the government to force them to do so makes us no different than communists. Our riches belong to US not the government. Besides, I don’t see politicians donating their lavish salaries and pensions to the poor.
Did you know that almost half of our taxes are paid by 1% of tax payers? They pay 38% of their income and you want to tax them MORE? Why don’t you cough up some dough instead of deciding how to spend OTHER people’s money that YOU didn’t work for!
5 likes
And I say this as a poor woman. This summer has been incredibly financially difficult for my husband and I. We have had trouble paying our bills and putting food on the table. We rent, we don’t own our own house. We are lower middle class, blue-collar, hard working but struggling… and yet I do not begrudge those who drive their mercedes, Audis and Lexuses. I don’t hate those who live in the mega mansions up the hill from me. I don’t hate the rich.
Jealousy is a big big big problem in America and it is destroying us.
9 likes
It’s hard to improve on Mary’s and Sydney’s comments.
Trickle-down economics is so much more successful than trickle-down government. It’s only been given a half-hearted try a few times: Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush fils.
It took up to a year or so to spark booms, and before you knew it the spending began to overwhelm the greater revenue intake.
I hope the next president will switch tactics to a tax overhaul. Eliminate most loopholes and truly make everyone pay their fair share. Meaning equal rates. That will truly be progressive. We need to progress our results! Not regress those we envy.
2 likes
Mary – i think the government has a spending problem and a revenue problem. Again, keep in mind that early in Bush’s term, we had two big tax cuts. This trickle-down economics that Hans has as an ideal didn’t happen – we had terrible job growth over the eight years, and a projected massive decade surplus went completely the opposite way. Now, over the next tean years, the projection of further extending those costs is about 3.3 trillion.
Do we just have a spending problem? Depends on what you value?
You can tell me about our spending problem. In 2010 – tax revenues were 2,162 billion.
So start cutting:
– Medicare/Medicaid was $800 billion
– Social Security – $700 billion
– Defense – $700 billion
– Interest on the debt – $200 billion (you can’t cut that)
– “other mandatory – $400 billion (includes unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, family support, child nutrition, and foster care)
– Discretionary – $660 billion – note - The Defense amount is just *discretionary* Department of Defense spending and includes spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but excludes certain defense-related spending in the Discretionary bucket (e.g., Homeland Security, Veteran’s Affairs, nuclear weapons) as well as some mandatory defense spending. Details on these departments are available in the President’s budget document. Including these departments would move defense-related spending into the $800-900 billion range.
So what are we looking to cut?
Some good info – http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf
In 2000, total revenue was 2,025 billion to spending of 1,789 billion.
By 2004, revenue had fallen to 1,880 billion to spending of 2,292 billion.
In 2010, revenue was just 2,161 with spending of 3,455 (all in billions – and yes, Obama and congress kicked in stimulus spending, but keep in mind in Bush’s last year, we were at 3,000 billion).
So in ten years, we increased revenue a tiny bit – but decided to fight a few wars, create the department of homeland security, and massively increase medicare (Bush’s drugs act).
So do we have a spending problem? Yes, in that, we decide we want to spend money on stuff, but aren’t willing to pay for it.
I for one, believe we should have a military and take care of our veterans. I believe we should provide care for the poor, disabled, and elderly. And to do all that, we need to increase taxes. Look at the numbers – go through the easily found simulations on the web – there’s just very little way around it – unless of course, you have different values. Slash the military – put the elderly on the streets…those are other ways to get rid of the problem.
Budgets are moral documents. I guess I’m fine taxing the rich higher and increasing revenue so that we can fund the military, elderly, disabled, and poor.
3 likes
Hans – I disagree. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy dramatically, and we’ve still yet to see a trickle down.
3 likes
Unemployment averaged just over 5% in the Bush years, despite being bookended by recessions and 9/11. Obama? Compare and contrast.
If you could squeeze more from the rich, not peeve them enough to go searching for more loopholes (as we would), and they would risk what they have left on expanding their businesses anyway, we could gamble on your aprroach.
I just don’t see it. That has already been tried - and is untrue.
1 likes
The old ‘crumbs from the table’ mantra is one of the most dishonest theories ever espoused.
The rich have a very strong habit of keeping what they have. Yes many are good philanthropists but they also use those events for networking and business dealing. They don’t do anything for nothing. Nothing hugely wrong with those factors overall but lets be serious about their intent.
In business I have found that many people who are ‘rich’ have a tendency to expect to get things for free or at great discount whereas the ‘non-rich’ expect to pay for what they want.
How many employees does an employer employ? As few as they possibly can to achieve the production they need to. If wages go down do they employ more? No. They just smile because it’s more money in their pocket. The concept of an inadequate minimum wage – or no minimum wage as many would prefer – is a socio-economic crime.
Once a very wealthy person has a mansion or two or three, a garage full of exotic cars and a wardrobe the size of some peoples’ houses, what use is ten times as much money to them?
And many of these people don’t even spend their own money on their own lifestyle, they find ways to get the company to cover it. I know because I’ve done it to a very small and minor extent.
The financial crisis has left the vast majority of the ‘non-rich’ still suffering while most of the ‘rich’ are back to at least as good as they had it before.
Jealousy isn’t the ‘big, big problem’, the ever-expanding gap between rich and poor is.
4 likes
EGV,
You’re falling for the same old class warfare hype, which is right up there with everyone who criticizes Obama is a racist. Lots of strawmen EGV, and tactics used by people to turn people like you away from the real problem(s).
You could tax the rich to the last dime and you could run the gov’t, maybe, 2 months.
Getting rid of such useless gov’t agencies as the DOE and drastically paring down the EPA would be a good start to fiscal responsibility. I don’t think getting involved with Libya, like Iraq, was a brilliant move or helped matters. Let’s look at the billions we give away in “foreign aid”. Also, what do Obama’s “czars” make?
3 likes
REality,
Sounds like you are another one being taken for a class warfare ride.
The rich keep what they own. Imagine the audacity of keeping what one owns.
Why shouldn’t they? I bet you do too but that’s just a wild guess.
Yes rich employers are evil and conniving. Workers are all but chained to the walls. Of course workers never do anything like steal, call in sick when they’re not, slack off, or just try to get by. You should work with some of the more educated people that I do. God forbid they work past 8 hours and they better be allowed to leave when they want and still paid for a full day.
Once rich people have all these possessions what do they need? Well, someone had to produce those possessions and someone likely must maintain them. Gee, sounds like they have to employ people. They pay property taxes on their mansions, and that pays let’s see, teachers, police, firefighters, and other city employees, who of course utilize the local economy and stimulate business. When they take vacations I’m sure the destination resorts and tourists spots, which employ local people, are very happy to see them. I’m sure the staff of the vacation homes are very happy some people can afford vacation homes.
The company pays? Employers often pay for tuition reimbursement, continuing education, etc. for employees. Employees also get benefits, paid vacation and sick time, etc.
As I said, those eeeeeeeeeeeevil rich people.
6 likes
Hans – when Bush took office, unemployment was at 4.3%. When he left, it was 7.8%.
So are you saying the tax rates under Reagan were a failure? That it was “squeezing the rich too much”?
What do you propose eliminating? Social Security? The military?
1 likes
Mary -
Class warfare? I want to raise tax rates on the rich. You’d like to avoid that, which would result in cutting things like health care and support for the poor. And I’M the one in class warfare?
Was Reagan a class warfare president? He had higher tax rates on the rich.
The DOE is 70 billion (increased a lot under Bush for NCLB). EPA is $10.5 billion – so you’ve cut 80 billion out of the 1.2 trillion you need to cut. Keep going.
Not sure though how many more billion we should add for treating our kids for cancer as we stop policing things like the clear air act and clean water acts (since you are eliminating the epa) – but that shouldn’t cost you much money anyways because it doesn’t appear you want to treat kids with cancer anyways (the poor kids…I mean, the rich need more Yachts!)
3 likes
“Sounds like you are another one being taken for a class warfare ride.”
Oh please. You’re the only one waging class warfare here by attempting to frame the discussion in terms of “keeping what one owns”, as if anyone here is calling for the government to seize all private property, or equating “rich” with “employers”, as if all or even most rich people are humble entrepreneurs doing their best to create jobs for the lowly, undeserving and ungrateful peasants, and all we need to do to fix our economic woes and return to prosperity once more is destroy a few federal agencies that consume a tiny proportion of the federal budget. It’s impossible to have any kind of substantive discussion with someone whose “argument” consists entirely of regurgitated talking points from Fox “News”.
“The rich keep what they own. Imagine the audacity of keeping what one owns.
Why shouldn’t they? I bet you do too but that’s just a wild guess.”
What does this even mean, Mary? What is it supposed to be an argument against? Paying taxes at all? Why should I have to pay so much as a dime in taxes? Shouldn’t I be allowed to keep what I own? I’m sure you’re not advocating for the complete abolition of all taxes, so you must have in mind some kind of precise point at which the tax rate goes from just and fair to class warfare and socialism.
3 likes
“ but that shouldn’t cost you much money anyways because it doesn’t appear you want to treat kids with cancer anyways (the poor kids…I mean, the rich need more Yachts!)”
Maybe the poor kid’s dad is a worker for the yacht company that pays his insurance that pays the doctor that treats the kid’s cancer. Why is it better to tax the would be yacht buyer to pay the poor kid’s dad unemployment and pay a bureaucrat to pay the doctor to treat the kid?
Just asking.
4 likes
start by having the workers in congress get a regular benefit instead of the super-sized benefits they all enjoy.
Start by eliminating waste and fraud. Medicaid is riddled with such things. Start by encouraging giving instead of hoarding/multiple items/etcetera. How about stopping the mandating of certain insurance coverages for everything (sterilizations, abortions, contraception etc.) If anyone wants these they should pay for it themselves – except for those who have a disease that requires the removal of the ovary/uterus/etc… voluntary sterilization should not be paid for by insurance.
Get people skills for working and learning and betterment – and not have minimum standards that people go thru to get their checks. I see it all the time. minimize the school/instruction/work needed for benefits, and we see people only doing the minimum to get what they want instead of helping out every family one-on-one with budgeting, skill-building, etc.
I see it in the poor I serve. They have learned more from a one on one relationship than anything else. Most people want to improve their lives for them and their children – but the system insists that women are not married to men, that they are not worthy of help and that they can not be helped. I see all the time that the choices that people make in purchasing, and trying to get jobs are not in line with reality, and no one wants to really sit with them and guide them in a productive manner. We encourage going back to school, getting skills and how to make decisions that really work. we see it happen. Now if the government can do the same.
PS if any family ran their finances like the government, they would have been homeless a long time ago.
Also – we need everyone to help each other. If every family can help a homeless shelter, school, soup kitchen, education etc. we could make a real impact.
2 likes
Also – every family should give money to worthy charities in their community. The local help is more efficient – and our family began tithing a number of years ago. Even though we have had one child go thru college and one about to enter – we faithfully give because it’s all of God’s money anyway and we need to help others.
It’s our mandate if we are to love. Love big. Love with actions. Give.
1 likes
joy – the disappointing thing is, under Clinton, they put paygo in place – if anything affects the budget, you have to pay for it (maybe it came in before clinton, but it was in place). They scrapped it under Bush – so things like the war, tax cuts, and medicare expansion weren’t paid for…heck, Orrin Hatch has a great quote where he says they weren’t interested in paying for things back then!
So you are right, the government would be homeless a long time ago!
1 likes
Tax EVERYONE more, if you want to increase revenues. Do not just tax the rich.
I think there is a real problem when nearly half the population pay no taxes and the solution is to increase the taxes on just the upper end of the taxpayers – the group of people who create jobs. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are free to give more to the government but the Obama taxes target small businesses.
Make everyone pay something in taxes and get rid of the entitlement attitude.
Troy Davis’ life has the same value as the child in the womb – priceless in the eyes of God. But you cannot deny that Troy Davis received due process from the American judicial system (flawed as you may believe it to be) – and he received an anesthesia before they lethally injected him – both more than the child in the womb experiences during abortion.
2 likes
Barb – would like some clarifications on your statement. Do you believe that there should be an alternative min tax on everyone so that everyone pays taxes? Or how do you see that working? Eliminate more deductions?
I don’t own a company, but I feel like I help create jobs – I pay taxes, I buy things like houses, cars, things for my kids. Do only owners of companies create jobs?
0 likes
Every adult should pay taxes. We all benefit from government services. I’m sure the people writing the tax code could figure it out. One of the most memorable arguments with my dad was over the taxes he paid on his pension/social security income. Now he has passed on and I am now paying taxes on my pension income.
Well, if you are creating jobs, I am creating jobs, too, only I don’t buy houses. Ours is paid for and I like it that way.
My issue with the tax debate is that the people in favor of raising taxes are not talking about their taxes going up.
Anyone who wants more of their money to go to the government can give the government more of their money. We don’t need a change to the tax rate to accomplish that. As for me, I am OK with the amount I pay in taxes and do not want them to go up. I can understand if people wealthier than me feel the same way. Especially if you think the government is wasting the money or using it to create a dependent class.
1 likes
EGV,
Do you really fall for all that claptrap about how grandma will starve and children will die unless we tax the rich?
EGV, I have shown you how the rich generate employment and increase the number of taxpayers. Heavily tax the rich and they take their business and money elsewhere. They build factories in countries where people stand in line to work for minimum wage, which for these desperately poor people is a king’s ransom.
Recently a manufacturer near us got concessions from striking union members by saying it was prepared to pack up and move to another state where nonunion people were standing in line for jobs. Catch my drift???
You can tax the rich to their last dime and maybe run the gov’t for a couple of months. The rich are not a bottomless well to draw from EGV.
There’s no sense to it EGV. Like it or not spending has to be brought under control.
Also just a fyi: The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of taxes
The top 1% pay 39% or the taxes, up 2% from when Bush took office in 2000
Source: Data from the latest tax year release from the IRS.
1 likes
EGV 5:20PM
I just noticed this post and you make my point brilliantly! Thank you.
0 likes
joan 11:16am
No joan, this means that I see no reason why the rich shouldn’t keep what they own, as I see no reason why you shouldn’t.
0 likes
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/09/obamare-hhs-rule-would-give-government-everybody-s-health-records
How is it that the libs scream about the Patriot Act infringing on their privacy but they are happy the HHS bureacracy is forcing private insurance companies to turn over confidential personal health information about ALL patients? I would guess that if the Patriot Act was called the Obama Act the libs probably would have been to get tracked by the Patriot Act too. Obama uber alles!
0 likes
People should pay taxes if they make enough to earn a decent or better living. I’m not entirely sure about which system of taxation is the best or worst. Economically, I a pragmatist; I’m for whatever WORKS.
But I have a lot of misgivings about what Perry,Bachmann, Santorum, Romney or any of the others have in mind to try to do. They may sound great in theory, but I have a lot of doubts . Just reducing taxes for the wealthiest does NOT create more jobs,or increase overall prosperity. It’s great for a small number of people who will become rich or get even richer if they are already wealthy, but the more you lower taxes, the less there is for all the many things the government and the nation need to function.
Just getting rid of government programs to help those in need will only make things much harder for those down on their luck. It’s very bad to have so many people stuck indefinitely on welfare, but you can’t just tell them, “you’re on your own now,you lazy bums.Go out and get a job!” If only things were that simple ! But it’s NOT easy for people on welfare to get good jobs.If it were, we wouldn’t have so many people on it.
Contrary to what conservative Republicans claim, there aren’t millions of lazy bums in America who want the government to support them for life. Most people want to earn a decent or better living, support themselves, and to be secure throughout their lives. But this is anything but easy for so many. You have to make it POSSIBLE for people to find good jobs. They don’t grow on trees. There HAS to be a safety net for people down on their luck, or else millions of people will be helpless in the face of adversity.
Conservatives say that the safety net should be provided by private charities and churches,etc. But while these charities are all well and god, they can’t possibly provide for every one in need. The government has to do SOMETHING.
0 likes
Joan: There is no irony. A convicted murderer’s humanity is not in doubt and his mere existence cannot be said to infringe upon another person’s physical autonomy. It’s perfectly consistent to support abortion and oppose the death penalty.
Very well said. Personally, I don’t oppose capital punishment per se, but as with our court appeals process it’s cheaper to keep somebody in prison for the rest of their life versus going through everything to execute them, I think it’s rather a moot point.
0 likes
Ex-GOP, to Mary: Mary – Lets just take your rationale further – lets just not tax people that make over a million at all. They create all the jobs and spend money correctly, right?
As long as they spent their money in the US, you have a point. ;)
I think the problems arise in that scenario because it tends toward what we had in the 1800s and early 1900s – a relatively very few super-rich people with the vast multitudes being little better, if any, than serfs. Thus we had the rise of the unions, gov’t regulation, progressive taxes, etc. The pendulum swings from one side to the other…
Between that and hardcore Socialism is where we’re going to draw the line, and we all have our pet places to draw it. We’re always going to be hapoy with where it’s at (the minority of us) or want it shifted one way or the other (the majority of us).
0 likes
Hans: Trickle-down economics is so much more successful than trickle-down government. It’s only been given a half-hearted try a few times: Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush fils.
You know, it’s really not. Again – over the past few decades, the richest Americans have gained around 300% in wealth, while the average “Joes” have remained the same.
0 likes
Mary: the Birdbrain of Alcatraz, Nancy Pelosi
Ahahahahaaaa!! :)
0 likes
Mary I don’t believe there is ‘class warfare’ but if there is then it wasn’t started by myself or the poor. It is the behavior of the rich and powerful which invokes negative feelings from the hoi polloi.
If you had read my comment accurately or honestly you would have noted that I said “Nothing hugely wrong with those factors overall but lets be serious about their intent.”
Then you revert to the ‘crumbs from the table’ mantra. Yawn.
“The company pays? Employers often pay for tuition reimbursement, continuing education, etc. for employees. Employees also get benefits, paid vacation and sick time, etc.” – everyone from the bottom to the top gets those things. The ones at the top also get more, many of which could be classified as personal benefits which get charged to the company. Like I said, I’ve done it myself to a comparatively miniscule extent.
No-one said they were evil, stop with the strawman defence. I just pointed out the anomolies and injustice of the socio-economic reality.
1 likes
Hans: Unemployment averaged just over 5% in the Bush years, despite being bookended by recessions and 9/11. Obama? Compare and contrast.
Dude? What recession was in force for Bush Jr. in the beginning? Heck, 2000 was a major stock-market top, for Pete’s sake. And I’m not really defending Obama here – but just what “magic” do you think he or any President could have done, given the situation when he took office?
Bush Jr. had already embarked on the “rescue” course of gov’t bailouts, etc. The Federal Gov’t deficit was already going through the roof.
0 likes
Truthseeker: Obama uber alles!
Holmes, you need a drink.
0 likes
Barb: Every adult should pay taxes.
Barb, I took your first and last sentences. In a way, I agree with you. I think I’d be in favor of a flat tax, and have seen studies that say that a rate of 17% or 18% would balance the budget. But you know what? It would never happen because so many politicians are too eager to have their favored tax-breaks enshrined in law. Call my cynical.
____
Especially if you think the government is wasting the money or using it to create a dependent class.
Well, a dependent class has been created. Given the political climate in the US over the past 80 years, I don’t see any way around that. Are we going to let widows and orphans starve? Again, where do we draw the line?
Tell you what – there really is not any such thing as a “free lunch,” and any system that supports those who don’t contribute to the system in “enough” measure is a weakened system. Does our gov’t waste money? Oh good grief yes – but I’m not saying that any other system would necessarily be better, i.e. we’re going to have some type of central control or we’ll be worse off and even more unhappy (IMO), and so you’re going to have that.
Republican (conservative) administrations feature “gov’t waste” just like Democratic (liberal) ones do. It will always be easy to point the finger at certain things.
0 likes
Reality: I just pointed out the anomalies and injustice of the socio-economic reality.
Yah – and they’re always going to be there. Whaddayougunnado?
0 likes
“No joan, this means that I see no reason why the rich shouldn’t keep what they own, as I see no reason why you shouldn’t.”
Okay, Mary, then answer the question: if I’m paying my taxes with money that I own (what other money would I use?), why shouldn’t I instead be able to keep that money? Completely? I own all of it, don’t I? If you’ve acknowledged that it’s within the mandate of the government to tax its citizens, then you’ve implicitly acknowledged also that the government has the authority to take at least some of what you own, and the only remaining points of contention are how much and for what reasons. Those are open to debate, but it would be absurd to claim that some magical number or rate exists at which point taxation goes from just and fair to oppressive, which is what you’re doing when you complain about how the rich are somehow the targets of “class warfare” when the government raises their taxes.
0 likes
“I think I’d be in favor of a flat tax, and have seen studies that say that a rate of 17% or 18% would balance the budget.”
The problem with a flat tax is that it’s regressive and economically counter-productive. 17% or 18% of a $20,000 yearly income could mean the difference between being able to afford basic necessities (food, utilities, rent) and not being able to afford those things. 17% or 18% (or even 30%, or 40%) of the income of a person making $200,000 a year, on the other hand, is not going to have an impact on their standard of life. The other major difficulty with a flat tax is that members of the lower economic classes spend, as a proportion of their income, much more than the rich do. If you tax everyone at 18%, the spending habits of most wealthier people are not going to appreciably change, but the discretionary spending of the less wealthy will drastically decrease and there will be that much less money being spent in the domestic economy.
0 likes
Doug, we no longer live in caves or tents. There is no rational excuse for a modern western nation to not have things such as universal health care, education and a decent welfare safety net.
If we look at various social indices in countries such as northern and western europe, the UK and australia and compare them with the US, the US fares poorly in regards to health, educational outcomes, crime and incarceration rates, drug abuse and teen pregnancy.
This is an outcome of the application of appropriate rates of taxation and broad provision of services which support community.
And while the PIGS may be in financial strife, this has not been brought about by the rates of taxation and provision of services. It has been caused by speculation and the greed of people who want unrealistic profits from their investments.
This is not a panacea but the results already show which path delivers better results for society.
1 likes
Reality 7PM
Exactly what is the “crumbs from the table mantra”?
The rich invoke negative feelings from the Hoi polloi?
Nothing hugely wrong with those factors overall but let’s be serious about their intent
The anomalies and injustice of the socioeconomic reality.
Would it be too much to ask for a translation?
0 likes
joan, 7:27PM
Can’t you be satisfied with the top 50% of wage earners paying 97% of the taxes?
1 likes
“Exactly what is the “crumbs from the table mantra”?” – the concept that allowing the rich to make as much money as they want and can without taxing them will invoke their sense of altrusim and they will deign to provide a measurable level of contribution to the less fortunate.
“The rich invoke negative feelings from the Hoi polloi?” – when I was younger the heads of companies earned about 30 times what the average worker made. They were wealthy. Nowadays they earn 300 or even 3000 times as much as the average worker and the best paid are those who don’t actually produce anything tangible. People who work 60 hours a week to provide food and a roof for their family see the extreme extravagance of these people and wonder how such huge disparity is justifiable or equitable.
“Nothing hugely wrong with those factors overall but let’s be serious about their intent” – the rich don’t do anything for nothing. Their charitable works do help others but they only do it because it avails networking, business dealings and/or a good ‘social face’.
“The anomalies and injustice of the socioeconomic reality.” – the disparities in access to health, education and other factors.
And what percentage of property, shares, bank balances etc. does that top 50% hold Mary?
1 likes
Reality 8:35PM
I concern myself with what employment the rich generate, not necessarily altruism. So, all the increased taxes on the rich will go to the unfortunate? You know this for a fact how…?
Concerning charities. Aren’t you the best judge of what to donate your money to? What if you choose not to? Why should it be any different for the rich? Also, can you tell us what specifically the rich donate and to whom? I understand Donald Trump donates very generously to cerebral palsy charities. Do you?
HoiPolloi: Guess what, life ain’t fair. How do I feel about people who are immensely talented, beautiful, and famous? Is it fair that Sophia Loren is gorgeous and wealthy and I am neither? Is it fair someone is an immensely talented artist who makes a great deal of money and I can’t draw a straight line? Do you live with any physical or mental challenges? Is it fair that others do? Its called life Reality, get over it.
Oh the rich are only motivated by the need for a “social face”. You know this for a fact how Reality? Could it be just a little personal bias on your part here? If someone throws you a life preserver to keep you from drowning, do you question their motive? Who cares what motivates someone’s charity so long as it helps someone?
What percentage of property etc. is owned by the rich? That’s not the point. The point is they are already paying the bulk of the taxes. Kind of throws a big fat monkey wrench in your argument, doesn’t it?
1 likes
Joan: The problem with a flat tax is that it’s regressive and economically counter-productive.
Well, we don’t really know if it would be counter-productive, overall, or not.
____
17% or 18% of a $20,000 yearly income could mean the difference between being able to afford basic necessities (food, utilities, rent) and not being able to afford those things. 17% or 18% (or even 30%, or 40%) of the income of a person making $200,000 a year, on the other hand, is not going to have an impact on their standard of life.
I don’t see that as truly either/or, but there is a good point there. However, if a flat tax would be part of a balanced-budget package, I’d still be for it. The IRS, after all, could be 99% eliminated, for one thing.
___
The other major difficulty with a flat tax is that members of the lower economic classes spend, as a proportion of their income, much more than the rich do. If you tax everyone at 18%, the spending habits of most wealthier people are not going to appreciably change, but the discretionary spending of the less wealthy will drastically decrease and there will be that much less money being spent in the domestic economy.
True to some extent as well, Joan. But the way we have it now is no good – the gov’t spending more than it takes in. You think an 18% tax is tough on certain people? Look at the eventual repercussions of the debt. We have had it “too good” for a very long time, due to deficit spending (and the willingness of others to finance us) and now we are in for some very serious declines in standard-of-living. It’s a real “new deal” if ever there was one.
Still, I know that bringing in a flat tax, now, would not make the debt magically disappear, any more than trimming back the IRS to the ground would.
2 likes
“I concern myself with what employment the rich generate” – it’s not as much as you would like to think it is. A better outcome is money spent on teachers and nurses, that’s where a much greater benefit to society is delivered on a number of levels.
“I understand Donald Trump donates very generously to cerebral palsy charities. Do you?” – I can guarantee you that I have given a much larger slice of what I have accumulated to charity than the likes of Trump have. They donate a pittance. Gates’ plan to donate the bulk of his wealth is one of the first real actions.
“Guess what, life ain’t fair.” – of course it’s not. But that doesn’t mean we should give carte blanche to some elements to make it even more unfair.
“How do I feel about people who are immensely talented, beautiful, and famous?” – pleased for them. That is not what I am talking about.
“Is it fair that Sophia Loren is gorgeous and wealthy and I am neither?” – yes.
“Is it fair someone is an immensely talented artist who makes a great deal of money and I can’t draw a straight line?” – yes.
“Do you live with any physical or mental challenges?” – yes.
“Is it fair that others do?” – depends on how you look at it and what the causes are.
“Its called life Reality, get over it.” – there’s a vast difference between what life dishes out, what we do to ourselves and the impacts of the greed and selfishness of others.
“You know this for a fact how Reality? Could it be just a little personal bias on your part here?” – no, experience.
“If someone throws you a life preserver to keep you from drowning, do you question their motive? Who cares what motivates someone’s charity so long as it helps someone?” – the problem is when an entire boatload of people are drowning yet the ‘generous’ still only toss out one or two life preservers even though they have a shedfull.
“The point is they are already paying the bulk of the taxes. Kind of throws a big fat monkey wrench in your argument, doesn’t it” – not in the least. Do you want to pay the same amount of tax as someone who earns 20 times what you do?
0 likes
Reality: Doug, we no longer live in caves or tents. There is no rational excuse for a modern western nation to not have things such as universal health care, education and a decent welfare safety net.
Reality, what if you have a tent in a cave? Okay, seriously – if universal health care was what we made a priority, and we could do it within a balanced-budget, that would be one thing. But we are on the other end from that now. Hey, I can speculate about flat taxes and other systemic alterations, but our course is really pretty well set now, due to what we’ve done for the past 70 or 80 years, and it’s an ugly picture.
____
If we look at various social indices in countries such as northern and western europe, the UK and australia and compare them with the US, the US fares poorly in regards to health, educational outcomes, crime and incarceration rates, drug abuse and teen pregnancy.
Teen pregnancy is the fault of all these pro-lifers moaning about contraception. ;) Okay, again, to be serious – I do think our incarceration rate could do with some adjustment. I also question the sustainability of the programs that are apparently doing better in those other countries.
Past a point, the amount of money a country spends on military stuff has negative economic consequences for that country’s inhabitants, and we have some room to improve there, as well.
____
This is an outcome of the application of appropriate rates of taxation and broad provision of services which support community.
That sounds awfully generalized and idealistic to me.
____
And while the PIGS ( may be in financial strife, this has not been brought about by the rates of taxation and provision of services. It has been caused by speculation and the greed of people who want unrealistic profits from their investments.
This is not a panacea but the results already show which path delivers better results for society.
“Better results” is a highly subjective deal. We are better and worse than many countries on many things. We are not at the point of looking for a panacea. We are not at the point of looking for sustainable things – it’s not politically possible. We are only trying to muddle through again, and we are running out of rope.
We’re used to a “business cycle” of ups and downs – relative “good times” then “bad times” within an overall larger “uptrend.” High points in 1929, 1966, then 2000 or 2007 (some measures have us peaking if 2000, others in 2007). We’re talking 35 or 40 year cycles, so if we are to have a 1/2 cycle down-move, that would take us to 2017 or later, even if things are still “ongoing” as before.
Sad thing is – in overall “weak” times the move down may occupy more than half the time of the overall cycle. So, are we out to 2020 or so before the real “good times” are here again? And – nothing says the overall “better-and-better” trend from 1929 to 2000/2007 has to remain in force. What if we’re now in a down-cycle of larger degree than merely correcting from 2000/2007?
“Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.” Perchance, the best we can hope for is what would have passed for the “worst” in the past.
1 likes
Mary: I concern myself with what employment the rich generate, not necessarily altruism. So, all the increased taxes on the rich will go to the unfortunate?
Mary, why would increased taxes necessarily mean they would employ less people?
1 likes
Reality,
The wealthy like the rest of us pay property taxes which pay for teachers and in some instances nurses.
Tell me exactly what Donald Trump donates as you “know” this is a pittance.
Carte blanche to elements to make life more unfair? Let’s see, we pay millions to people to bounce basketballs and throw pigskins. We pay millions to celebrities who haven’t finished high school. But hey that’s life. If they can get it and have a talent for sale, go for it.
I bring up life’s good and bad to make that point that there is no level playing field out there, never has been and never will be. Life ain’t fair, period. There will always be people who have more, are more successful at business, who can make money with their looks, who have more money, who aren’t nice, who are generous, who are not. Someone with a good head for business and a great product or talent is going a lot farther than I ever will. So what? Why should they be taxed more? Is success a crime? Is gov’t taxation going to make everything equal, fair, and turn our world into Shangri-la?
You seem to have a fixation Reality that the rich are inherently evil. Sure there’s lots in life that is unfair, but the rich! That’s the real evil and unfairness that must be addressed.
Do I want to pay the same amount of tax as someone making 20 times as much as I do?
Reality, that question doesn’t make an iota of sense.
0 likes
“what if you have a tent in a cave?” – that’d probably be quite cosy :-)
“if universal health care was what we made a priority, and we could do it within a balanced-budget” – yes, and the US has one of the lowest rates of taxation so it wouldn’t be too hard to achieve a better balance.
“I do think our incarceration rate could do with some adjustment.” – yeah, that whole ‘war on drugs’ thing is doing so well isn’t it.
“I also question the sustainability of the programs that are apparently doing better in those other countries.” – in fact some have introduced tighter means testing to contain spending. That basically amounts to a slight increase in taxation.
“That sounds awfully generalized and idealistic to me.” – it’s about the overall balance between levels of taxation and the provision of social programs.
“Better results” is a highly subjective deal – maybe. But aren’t lower crime, teen pregnancy and illiteracy rates better both subjectively and objectively?
I guess the bottom line for me is that as the social divide grows so does the manifestation of social inequality and numerous problems such as the aforementioned crime, teen pregnancy, drug abuse and social dislocation.
0 likes
Doug,
The quote doesn’t fit the question so I’ll address each seperately.
I don’t for a minute think our gluttonous out of control spending gov’t wants money off the rich to help the unfortunate. Also, the rich are not a bottomless pit of money. Sooner or later someone has to cut up the government’s credit cards.
Heavily tax the eeeevil corporations and they just outsource or put money away where the gov’t can’t get it. We saw this on a smaller scale when a local company, unable to meet union demands concerning pay and benefits, threatened to pull up stakes and move to a state where people were already signing up for jobs with this company.The union quickly caved when they realized the company wasn’t bluffing.
From what I have heard from business people, especially small business people, the problem is government regulation and economic uncertainty that is tying their hands and limiting their hiring. Also the talk of more taxes is not encouraging. Again this is business people talking, not my personal opinion.
0 likes
“Tell me exactly what Donald Trump donates as you “know” this is a pittance.” – is it 50%? 25%? 15%? Maybe 5%? Pathetic!
“Carte blanche to elements to make life more unfair? Let’s see, we pay millions to people to bounce basketballs and throw pigskins. We pay millions to celebrities who haven’t finished high school. But hey that’s life. If they can get it and have a talent for sale, go for it.” – I do not criticize people for gaining or attaining wealth. What I object to is their resistance to paying an equitable contribution to society.
“I bring up life’s good and bad to make that point that there is no level playing field out there, never has been and never will be” – I agree, but again, that does not mean that some should weigh down one end while the rest are left high and dry.
“You seem to have a fixation Reality that the rich are inherently evil.” – if that’s the conclusion you draw then you haven’t understood what I’ve been saying.
0 likes
“As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth … to provide men with buying power. … Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. … The other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.”
SOUND FAMILIAR?
Marriner S. Eccles – banker, industrialist, Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, 1937-1951. Author, Beckoning Frontiers, Knopf, 1951.
READ AND LEARN.
0 likes
Reality 11:39PM
Your point is….what?
You know what you make me think of Reality? People who have an obsessive irrational hatred of gay people. They “know” all these things about gay people, that’s why they hate them so.
0 likes
Mary:
It’s always good to see you in full combat mode. Picking up on your recent response to Reality about who “knows” what is at the heart of the problem when it comes to dialog.
Here is the problem when attempting to dialog with liberals. For the most part they cannot see the forest for the trees. There are a number of reasons for this, but presuming most of them on this blog are probably in their thirties or older we can assume they are already aware of many of the arguments for and against their positions. Their taking up the hard work of critical analysis and intellectual honesty, which is what you are asking them to do, is much less appealing to them than their simply doubling down on previously stated points and blurting out whatever comes to mind. Kind of reminds me of Eleanor Clift on The McGlothlin Report parroting the party line even though her statements are usually unsupported by the facts.
Because their minds are numbed by the incessant drumbeat of nonsense from the MSM most liberals “know” they need not challenge the assumptions and pre-suppositions they hold as incontestable. For example they wholly embrace the language of the MSM regarding pro-lifers as “anti-abortion”. One will often see this abuse compounded with words like “extremists”, “anti-woman”, and “misogynist” in the same sentence. Heard enough times one will reflexively incorporate this thinking as his or her own. Thus the term “anti-abortion” has found its way into the vocabulary of modern political and social discourse. This single factor does more to prevent true dialog with pro-lifers than any other, not because pro-lifers are grievously offended by the term “anti-abortion”, but because the starting point is manifestly hostile to genuine dialog.
Of late we have seen the same semantic twisting and turning regarding the tea party. The favorite tactic of the liberals is to blow way out of proportion comments purportedly made by a few tea partiers to make the case that the entire movement consists of such. Naturally their allies in this quest are the usual suspects in the MSM and academia. A full court press against the tea party is now underway with leading Hollywood and political figures throwing as much mud as possible at them…racists, wannabe lynch mobs, extremists, terrorists, barbarians etc. They have even been told to go “straight to hell”. Sure enough right on cue some of our contributors have picked up on these criticisms and parrot them as their own. Just as the pro-life movement continues to be disparaged in the MSM so too we see the same tactics unfolding with the tea party.
0 likes
You appear to have misread everything I’ve said Mary. I do not hate rich people. I have friends who are rich, some from ‘family money’ and some who have done very well for themselves. One of them even makes regular deposits into the accounts of some of his friends who aren’t doing so well.
I do ‘know’ rich folks, I know them well. I have travelled in their circles. I have done business with them and provided services to them.
There is nothing irrational or obsessive about what I have said. The point is that anyone earning in excess of $250K a year would not even notice an additional 1% tax yet thet would add up to a vast sum of money to alleviate the deficit.
That would have to be one of the biggest doses of pot, kettle I have read Jerry.
1 likes
Reality,
If you have a relative who spends irresponsibly, do you remedy this problem by finding sources of revenue for this person, or do you say enough already and cut up the credit cards?
Tax the rich to their last dime and you might run the gov’t, maybe 2 months. The rich aren’t a bottomless pit of money. Sooner or later spending has to be reined in.
You provided services for rich folks? See Reality you make my argument for me. Rich people generate employment. I say let them keep their money and avail themselves even more of the services you provide instead of giving it to the gov’t. Not only does this enable you to make a good living, but to avail yourself of consumer goods, thus providing employment to others as well. I wish you a very successful business, whatever it is.
Also Reality, please listen a little more closely to yourself. I didn’t make the comment comparing you to those with a venomous hatred of gay people to be mean but rather to make you aware of just how you come across.
0 likes
Hello Jerry,
Always good to see you here and thank you for the support.
0 likes
“If you have a relative who spends irresponsibly, do you remedy this problem by finding sources of revenue for this person, or do you say enough already and cut up the credit cards?” – what, like the war criminal George W who has cost billions if not trillions on an unjustified war in Iraq?
“Rich people generate employment” – like I said, not as much as you would like to think. I also do work for government departments and they pay the full and proper cost while I find that the richer someone is the more they pressure me for bigger and bigger discounts. They would rather I just did what they want done and be thankful for whatever they decide to give me.
0 likes
Doug,
Dude. Bush inherited the dotcom bubble burst recession. Eight months later, 9/11. That’s two sucker punches he had to recover from. And he did, pretty well. It was a boom almost as good as Reagan’s and Clinton’s. In fact the number of positive-growth months even outdid theirs.
0 likes
Doug,
The reason trickle-down economics works and trickle-down government doesn’t is quite simple. Are you more wasteful with someone else’s money or your own?
Do construction company owners tolerate $700 hammers and $1,000 toiilets like the Pentagon did? Does the government lift an eyebrow over waste? They won’t unless some control is enforced on their spending.
Sen. Connie Mack proposes a 1% across-the-board cut year after year until the budget is balanced. And I think he said that would be in only a few years.
Fat people (I’ve had some experience) didn’t gain their weight by eating a Thanksgiving Dinner every day. That’s why most diets don’t work.
Ex-GOP thinks we want to cut out major swaths of the government. No, just rein it in like a horse. We don’t want a full stop that’ll throw people in the streets.
0 likes
Reality 10:31PM
As I said, sooner or later the credit cards have to be cut up. And for the record, I did not support our involvement in Iraq, or Libya either for that matter. I can only hope both will have some kind of positive outcome.
Well government departments depend on taxpayers and we need only look at the medicare ripoffs and swindling involving billions upon billions to realize how well the gov’t manages the taxpayers’ hard earned dollars. Also if you feel you are not being given a fair price by the rich people you mention, no one forces you to work for them.
You don’t think someone like P.Diddy, Oprah, and Trump generates much employment??
0 likes
Hans: Dude. Bush inherited the dotcom bubble burst recession. Eight months later, 9/11. That’s two sucker punches he had to recover from. And he did, pretty well. It was a boom almost as good as Reagan’s and Clinton’s. In fact the number of positive-growth months even outdid theirs.
My point is that the decline after the “high” in March 2000 was not that big of an overall deal, both in terms of time and in terms of a “recession.” Late in 2002, the markets had already bottomed and were going up again – this action is within the overall context of the 1982 to 2007 general “good times,” even with 9/11 in there. In 2001 we just barely had a “recession,” anyway – the bare minimum having been met by the first and third quarters showing small economic declines, between 1% and 2% in both cases. There have been other recessions during larger uptrends, and other market scares, such as the stock market crash of 1987, a thing that at the time seemed wicked indeed, but in the long run was just another blip in the prevailing uptrend.
I’m not saying that Bush Jr. “caused” that slowdown, nor that he is to blame for the recession after the 2007 high, the worst one since the Depression. Not saying that Clinton really deserves credit for all the “positivity” during his terms, either He, like both Bushes and Reagan, benefitted from the declining trend in US interest rates and the “easy-money” environment and policies from the Federal Reserve Board.
0 likes
Mary: I concern myself with what employment the rich generate, not necessarily altruism. So, all the increased taxes on the rich will go to the unfortunate?
Doug: “Mary, why would increased taxes necessarily mean they would employ less people?”
The quote doesn’t fit the question so I’ll address each seperately.
I don’t for a minute think our gluttonous out of control spending gov’t wants money off the rich to help the unfortunate. Also, the rich are not a bottomless pit of money. Sooner or later someone has to cut up the government’s credit cards.
Agreed the rich are not “bottomless.” My point is that in past times, much higher top marginal tax rates didn’t mean the rich didn’t hire people, or that they necessarily hired less people. All through the “Nifty Fifties” and into the “Go-Go” years of the 1960s the top rate was either 91% or 92%.
Personally I don’t think “anybody” is going to cut up the gov’t credit cards. For sovereign gov’ts (sadly) it seems that the only thing that does it in the end is the market itself.
____
Heavily tax the eeeevil corporations and they just outsource or put money away where the gov’t can’t get it. We saw this on a smaller scale when a local company, unable to meet union demands concerning pay and benefits, threatened to pull up stakes and move to a state where people were already signing up for jobs with this company.The union quickly caved when they realized the company wasn’t bluffing.
Agreed to a large extent. Corporations do not really “pay” taxes, they just collect them.
____
From what I have heard from business people, especially small business people, the problem is government regulation and economic uncertainty that is tying their hands and limiting their hiring. Also the talk of more taxes is not encouraging. Again this is business people talking, not my personal opinion.
Uncertainty – no doubt – and employment tends to be a lagging indicator, i.e. it really doesn’t turn up until recessions are over and the new uptrend has been in force for a time. It takes some time to encourage cautious employers. Not saying we’re anywhere close to a real “uptrend” asserting itself, either.
I do think there is too much gov’t regulation. Some of it gets into the pros and cons – I wouldn’t do away with all regulation, of course – but in general, yeah, we’ve got too much BS for businesses, especially small businesses, to deal with.
0 likes
Reality: I guess the bottom line for me is that as the social divide grows so does the manifestation of social inequality and numerous problems such as the aforementioned crime, teen pregnancy, drug abuse and social dislocation.
Yeah, that happens, and I don’t think we can avoid it getting worse in the relatively near future, in the U.S. No matter what.
0 likes
Hans: The reason trickle-down economics works and trickle-down government doesn’t is quite simple. Are you more wasteful with someone else’s money or your own?
“Trickle-down” economics really has not worked for most people in the US – the very richest have gained roughly 300% in wealth in the past few decades while us regular Joe Blows have at best stayed the same. Not saying that “big gov’t” is the answer, either – gov’t itself produces no wealth. But totally unfettered capitalism has capital accumulating in the hands of the very, very few, while the vast majority of people end up akin to serfs.
____
Do construction company owners tolerate $700 hammers and $1,000 toiilets like the Pentagon did? Does the government lift an eyebrow over waste? They won’t unless some control is enforced on their spending.
I agree there is substantial waste in our gov’t. Will even an enforced balanced-budget mean that most of it is gone? I even doubt that.
____
Sen. Connie Mack proposes a 1% across-the-board cut year after year until the budget is balanced. And I think he said that would be in only a few years.
Sounds pretty good to me, on the face of it. One problem would be the rapidly increasing unfunded liabilities in the future, i.e. some gov’t expenditures are scheduled to go up more than 1% a year, so no net progress could be expected. If the “1% cut” is the overall spending for the current year versus the last year, that would indeed eventually balance the budget, but I don’t see the political or popular will for it.
___
Fat people (I’ve had some experience) didn’t gain their weight by eating a Thanksgiving Dinner every day. That’s why most diets don’t work.
Yeah – I don’t think we’d stay on the “1%” diet very long…
____
Ex-GOP thinks we want to cut out major swaths of the government. No, just rein it in like a horse. We don’t want a full stop that’ll throw people in the streets.
We’ve lived so far beyond our means for so long that I don’t think we can avoid some getting thrown into the streets, so to speak.
0 likes
Reality @ 6:27:
Thanks for the comment. As for the “pot” I wouldn’t know…perhaps you do. Which would explain a lot.
0 likes
Doug,
Of course the wealthy have tripled their money in recent decades. When you get to the point that you can invest, you grow. We Joe Blows just get by. But we aspire to get to that level where we can invest more.
The point is to not put obstacles in the way of investment. Economies can grow with the sky as the limit. Governments can bog us down.
It’s not a zero-sum game. It’s an ever-increasing pie. Allow the rich to get richer, and eventually the poor will get richer. Remember the American poor live like kings compared with the rest of the world.
“Progressive” tax rates are in fact regressive. They put ceilings on that “pie in the sky”. Why should a small business expand when it just hits a brick wall of higher taxes and more regulations? Is it any wonder we’ve been treading water these last three years?
Anybody but Obama will listen to “better (economic) angels”. Please God, no more of this ivory tower faculty lounge of an administration!
0 likes