Now that Obama has been safely elected on a campaign of false and/or misguided promises, the truth can start to be allowed to seep out. Surprise, surprise—raising taxes on the wealthy is not a good idea in a recession or depression.
See also this, another “now it can be told” story. Turns out it may not be so easy for Barack to just say no to Guantanamo.
And this is very very very very sobering. Want to bet that most people will never learn that the “Palin thought Africa was a country” thing was a hoax spread by a media (and bloggers on the Left) that has lost all sight of the idea of actually verifying what it prints?
And speaking of hoaxes, if this is true it signals just where our newly-relaxed and inclusive voting laws have gotten us:
My wife was an election judge this election in southeastern MN.
MN rules allowed these travesties:
1) Mentally retarded adults brought in by parents or group home ‘caregivers’, who proceeded to fill out the ballots for the “voter”, until my wife said no. Other judges let them do this. One caregiver would bring in 5 or 6 “mentally challenged” group home residents each.
2) Busloads …busloads… of Somali voters were brought in. MN law allowed one resident to vouch for fifteen voters …repeatedly. Very very few of them could read. It was clear the vouchsafe was instructing them which circle to fill in, which is not allowed. My wife objected, but other judges just looked the other way.
3) Many elderly people, obviously demented as all hell, having their vote instructed to them by their children or -when arriving by the busload from the nursing home or assisted living facility- told by the nurse what brung ‘em what to do. One guy kept bitching because he couldn’t find John F. Kennedy on the ballot. I kid you not.
With ACORN, Obama, the Palin attacks, the MSM in-the-tankedness, and Franken’s bullshit, this election is a travesty. It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
Oh, and any bets on whether the Obama campaign will ever be audited? I say no way. My favorite line from the linked editorial is the final one:
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign should ask for an FEC audit to settle any doubts.
Yeah. Don’t sit on a hot stove till it happens,though.
And then there’s Ed Koch, who’s mad. And rightly so. The bailout, originally distrusted by the American people, has so far fully earned that distrust by failing to include any teeth to make the bankers do what they were supposed to do and start lending again.
Mr. Koch suggests pitchforks (see last sentence). A bit like this (and yes, yes, I know it’s not exactly pitchforks in the picture):
[NOTE: The above is from the great German expressionist Kathe Kollwitz’s etching series “The Weavers,” about a nineteenth-century worker’s uprising that ended badly.]
November 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Apparently the Obamanauts are already starting to back off some of their promises. I’m not sure whether I should be pleased or annoyed.
neo, could you please summarize the NYT article re Palin? I refuse to log on to their poxy site. Cyber-hygiene and all that.
Thanks.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Apparently the Obamanauts are already starting to back off some of their promises. I’m not sure whether I should be pleased or annoyed.
They are using low balling tactics so that they can grease their way out of taking personal responsibility for what they did and promised. This is the same principle, but different tactic, they used on Bush by elevating expectations for Iraq so high that Bush was taking heat for things he never promised or did. Then when Bush was actually able to achieve some very high standards in Iraq, the Demoncrats moved the goals and acted like the history of their tactics never happened.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
With ACORN, Obama, the Palin attacks, the MSM in-the-tankedness, and Franken’s bullshit, this election is a travesty. It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
That’s why the 2nd AMendment is still around. Don’t worry, it will be alright even if it all drops into the pot.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
And all those voting problems were in Minnesota, a state thought to be reasonably clean. Imagine what it’s like in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, among others. As we move toward Big Brother government, we are getting elections to match.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
There are a lot of inaccuracies and misleading statements in your post, Neo, which I’d like to set the record straight about.
1) Regarding “raising taxes on the wealthy” — Obama’s plan is nothing like what FDR did. In fact, all he’s planning to do is let the tax rates return to what they were under Clinton — an extremely modest “increase” which just amounts to letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Secondly, although it’s arguable that the very high marginal tax rates FDR imposed may have caused economic harm in the short term, in the long term it resulted in a very long period of prosperity with low income disparity throughout the country. Excessive income disparity is bad for the economy simply because the economy is driven far more by spending by the middle class than it is by spending by the wealthy.
2) Regarding Guantanamo, Obama’s team has been suggesting creating a “national security court” which will be more secretive than a normal Federal court but with far more protections for the defense than the system imposed at Guantanamo. This has been in discussion in legal circles for quite a while now, and there’s no reason why it can’t be put into effect. So of course Obama is going to be able to close Guantanamo, as he promised. There is precedent for a national security court so I suspect it will pass Supreme Court review.
3) The whole ACORN story has been an overblown absurdity from the beginning. ACORN was the organization that reported the suspect registrations in the first place. They are required by law to submit all registrations even those they suspect are fraudulent, but they can and do report the ones that appear suspect. There is no evidence anyone actually voted illegally using any of the suspect registrations — the reason people submitted false registrations was simply because ACORN paid by the registration. There’s no “massive” fraud here, there’s just no story here.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Mitsu, please go back to the last thread. There are important messages there.
Mitsu wrote, “1) Regarding “raising taxes on the wealthy” — Obama’s plan is nothing like what FDR did. In fact, all he’s planning to do is let the tax rates return to what they were under Clinton — an extremely modest “increase” which just amounts to letting the Bush tax cuts expire.”
We all know. Leading into a recession it is the WRONG thing to do.
Mitsu wrote, “Secondly, although it’s arguable that the very high marginal tax rates FDR imposed may have caused economic harm in the short term, in the long term it resulted in a very long period of prosperity with low income disparity throughout the country.”
I addressed this in the last thread you wrote in. It’s something that needs cleared up in your mind so I do hope you go look. Additionally, WW2 led us out of depression. And another commenter was correct in pointing out that we provided most of the goods and services in the world after WW2. That market share of world goods and services went from a number near 50% to now 21% (if I recall). In short there is competition that didn’t exist after WW2. Please go look so you can learn. Respectfully I plead.
Why does Acorn need to exist? All of us who are responsible from early ages have registered to vote. We don’t need organizations like acorn. Acorn’s other arm was the one forcing banks with the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) to give loans to people who couldn’t REALLy afford the homes unless equity continued to rise. It was the reason for the precarious situation the Fmae and Fmac were in dire straights. Now that we have a President elect who got the second most from Fmae and Fmac and lawyered for Acorn - we will see less and less personal responsibility for people to register theirselves and buy houses within thier means…. It’s now what can the country do for you and take take take.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
As a one time Chicago area resident, this is big city machine politics with a fanatic tinge. I’m afraid today’s republicans hail mostly from the distant burbs (not even the close in) or rural areas where politics is not such a life or death affair.
Now living in Connecticut and a proud subsciber to the NY Post (always a chuckle in the AM), I see close up the politics of the one party state in NYC. Except for when a Rudy or Bloomberg challenges the Dems, there is no general election to speak of. The primaries are the battleground and even there democracy is old school favor buying.
We will see an increase in this type of rough electioneering and had better take the gloves off.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
so is this the quality of your once interesting blog for the next four years. Whining about having lost the election. Get over it. All this spite and bitterness is deeply dull. Yes we know you don’t like Obama. No he didn’t cheat to win the election; you lost. Yes the bailout is a farce but did Obama really create it? Come on admit you lost fair and square and move on.
[From neo-neocon: Surprise, surprise—here we appear to have a banned troll returning.
One of the things that always strikes me about such as “argument” as the above is that it is so very unresponsive to what I’ve written. Nowhere, for example, have I said that Obama created the bailout. In fact, I’ve always taken pains to point out that it was done with the cooperation of both parties. As far as cheating to win the election goes, there is strong evidence that there was cheating on Obama’s website for online donations, which constituted a huge part of his funds. And if “sockpuppy” thinks he/she can just state it isn’t so and have any thinking person believe him/her, it’s just another example of his/her poor judgment.
On the other hand, one of the things I’m pointing out in this thread is that Obama will probably never be called to answer for the irregularities of which his campaign appears to be guilty.]
November 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Whining about having lost the election.
Studying how terrorists torture women and children for their sadistic pleasure is not whining about them having taken Americans as prisoners. It is trying to deal with the ransom demands of the terrorists and trying to help the family deal with the very likelyhood that their sons and daughters won’t ever come back to them in anything but a box, and small boxes at that.
A rescue operation may be possible, but it has to face the very real consequences of what the terrorists will do.
All this spite and bitterness is deeply dull.
When will you understand that everything bad you see in the mirror comes from yourself rather than us?
November 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Where did neo say anything else? We’re not liberals here, who whine, throw temper tantrums, and mutter darkly about conspiracies when we lose.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Er…make that “they lose.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Yes the bailout is a farce but did Obama really create it? Come on admit you lost fair and square and move on.
Contrary to popular belief, Americans that believe in the value of the individual and in the right of the individual to self-defense and opportunity, will not bend knee to your ideology and your priests simply because you now hold the power that better men and women died to forge for you.
Andrew Jackson and his ideological descendants will not bow their heads nor bend their knees to the likes of you, regardless of how inequitable the odds are.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
A tangent to the bailout the past stimulus (and the looming BIG one) is something I saw on TV today. So many idiocies converging in one place. I hate to admit I watched it (caught caught in a wave lull while surfing) but there on Judge Mathis one woman was suing another for stealing her Stimulus Scheck (the exact words she used). Lord I think I am finally ready
November 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
No, Mitsu - Obama and his spokespeople specifically said - and pay attention to the language, because that is how they fool you - You will pay less under Obama’s plan than you did under Reagan.
It’s a statement designed to deflect - you say, hum, ok, that’s cool, and you walk away happy - UNLESS you realize or remember that taxes under Reagan were as high as 70% before he reduced them.
Obama can effectively DOUBLE your taxes and still be telling you the “truth.”
He has stated he plans to roll back the Bush tax cuts - those cuts removed alot of people from the tax rolls, that means and immediate increase in taxes for low income people who will now be placed back into tax paying mode - unless he’s going to discriminate…
And you are crazy if you think the ACORN fraud is not a story. Nice try.
Sad thing is, Obama would have won without the cheating it appears, too bad he had to taint his presidency (small p) this way.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Rose, people who are weak in character have so much fear of losing (their life, their fortunes or whatever they call honor in their little circle of friends) that they will do anything because of that fear.
So much fear of losing and so much megalomaniacal desire for power does not make for a very sane policy maker.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
and yet people talk as if there will be another election that they can participate in later.
as i said… its like believing that the perfect glass of liquid water is at 28 degrees…
you imagine a smooth linear spectrum between dark and light like a dimmer switch.
but some things and spectrums dont work that way… they only have to get to a critical point, then they change suddenly…
meanwhile, everyont thought they could go down to zero… but the truth is, at 28 degrees, you dont get a really cool glass of water, you get a frozen block of ice…
but if i want ice, and you want water. i only have to convince you that my ice wont appear till below zero… and not tell you this is a farenheit thermometer.
all the left thinks that if they are wrong, they can go back. ever see a pickle turn into a cucumber?
but i guess a society that thinks a women becomes a virgin again after a few months abstinance, and things celebacy is temporary, can beliece that all processes are reversible.
a cuban famously said that he was luckier than the americans… why? beacuse he had america to run to…
america is gone… you and the rest havent figured out we lost it 20 years ago, and the rest of all this is just consolidation till its less messy to press the point.
do it early the population riots and its a mess.
do it right, and they see the hoplessness i nit and how its too late, and they just give in and try to ride it out.
ah well. it was nice while it lasted… now i just have to see about trying to leave to a undesirable place to stave off the inevitable.
whats happening with prop 8 should tell you that what they want will happen no matter what we vote. they will beat up women, elderly couples, damage churches… the list goes on..
go here antigayblacklist.com/
and see the image they put up.
and what you have are gay people wishing to create the same state that murdered them!!!!
thats useful idiots…
they are gay…
they want sociailsm to be equal..
they put a memorial to the gays killed by hitler
they dont believe hitler is a socialist…
and the end result is?
by the way, they are not even bright enough to realize that in the west, under the right wing people, and the religious people they are tolerated… they dont get everything they want, but no one does… however they are tolerated a lot.
but they didnt research the size of the gay community out of the state in the population in germany, russia, china, cambodia, north korea, cuba, etc. even irans leader who is chummy with chavez, and putin says there are no gays.
so they are basically plaiting the nooses that they will use to hang themselves with.
and they are alienating and pushing awy the people who during wwii SAVED THEM!!!
November 13th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Heads on pikes. Nothing else will, in the end, do.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
A couple of things:
1) neo — the way you link the Amity Shlaes column, you make it sound like she is the one who is only now admitting that raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. But Shlaes is generally pretty conservative, and wrote columns during the campaign arguing that McCain’s plans for taxes (particularly corporate taxes and taxes on capital gains and dividends) were better then Obama’s.
2) Mitsu — Obama has talked not just about raising income tax rates back to where they were under Clinton, he has also talked about extending the Social Security tax to all income, not just the first $102,000, or whatever the ceiling is today. That would be a much bigger hike in the effective top marginal tax rate on income.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
This is the same “truth” you were telling before the election, so I don’t know why you think “now” is any different from then. Your stories were heard, they just weren’t persuasive to enough people.
What you will find different now is that various people will be leaking stories to the press in order to try to influence the new administration to their way of thinking. So you’ll start seeing these “closing Guantanamo is hard”, “raising taxes is hard”, “universal health care is hard” stories, promulgated by those who don’t want these things to happen but disguised as objective analysis. It’s just the normal jockeying that goes on around any incoming administration.
Oh, and another thing I heard on some blog is that in the next few years it’s going to be less necessary to respond to and counter every bit of right-wing wrongness that appears on the internet, because unlike the outgoing administration, there is going to be no one in power who will be listening.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
“Oh, and another thing I heard on some blog is that in the next few years it’s going to be less necessary to respond to and counter every bit of right-wing wrongness that appears on the internet, because unlike the outgoing administration, there is going to be no one in power who will be listening.”
This is meaningless piffle (”I heard on some blog that in the next few years”, “less necessary”, etc.) disguised as an argument. I don’t know if Hyman is a regular poster but it sounds like more troll talk to me.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
The current Obama tax plan does not include the Social Security tax idea. He floated that last year but has dropped it.
Obama is NOT saying that everyone will pay less tax than under Reagan. He is saying that everyone who makes under $250K/year will pay less tax than they’re paying now. That is quite accurate. The only tax cuts he proposes rolling back to the way they were in the 90’s are the ones given to those making more than $250K/year.
I make more than $250K/year, so I would be affected by this. However, I voted for Obama. Why? Because I love my country, and I believe he will make a far superior president than most we’ve had in the last few decades. I’m willing to pay a little more tax in exchange for good governance.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Re - the mentally and handicapped voting, my better half (and after 24 + years of marriage she deserves bettter), is the guardian of a family member that is in a group home. As guardian she received a call on election day wondering why the family member is not registered to vote. We were flabbergasted that this would even be brought up since the person in question has a mind of a six year old and can not even read or write.
So it is very, very easy for me to believe these type of stories.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I’m willing to pay a little more tax in exchange for good governance.
THat’s nice, if you hadn’t voted to use the power of the government to force other people to do the same.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Mitsu wrote, “I make more than $250K/year, so I would be affected by this. However, I voted for Obama. Why? Because I love my country, and I believe he will make a far superior president than most we’ve had in the last few decades. I’m willing to pay a little more tax in exchange for good governance.”
If you love your country you would learn quickly about the effect of ALL the tax rate increases that Obama has planned and write AGAINST them.
Do you want your country to have:
1) Less dependence on government
2) More prosperity
3) More opportunity
4) A stronger safety net
5) Strong national security
Then end the nonsense now of trying to convince people that tax rate increases on capital gains, top income brackets, and corporations is good. It leads to more dependence, less opportunity, and negatively impacts economic growth.
There is NO economic theory that believes that increasing tax rates leading into recession or depression helps the economy.
Love your country as you say you do.
I’m using strong language here to help wake you up.
The Laffer curve is not on your side at this point in history. The government might be able to raise tax rates when and if we were coming out of a recession and leading into steaming growth.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Mitsu, BTW, I’d rather you take that money and:
Start a scolarship
1) Invest
2) Start a business
3) Buy a home
4) Give to charity
5) Buy a clean car
6) vote with your wallet by buying American goods
7) Hire a contractor to improve your home
9) Give to a school
10) Work less hours and let somebody else pick up your slack
All of those things would be better for the economy than the propaganda you propose. Spend your time and money wisely….
November 13th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
I understand you’re a committed economic libertarian, Baklava, but in my opinion economic history thoroughly discredits extremist laissez-faire. Not only do I think restoring some progressivity to the tax system is a good idea, I believe it results in a more efficient and productive economy.
We have a huge current account deficit and have for decades. We spend more than we produce. This cannot go on forever. A large part of this the wealthy have simply sucked out of the productive economy far too large a proportion of the productivity gains of recent decades.
Such gains would be much better put into the hands of the middle class, in my view. This would result in a more stable, more productive, and more efficient economy.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Mitsu,
If paying a higher rate is a good thing, why haven’t you been? Who forced you to pay at the current tax rate? Why didn’t you just simply contribute more? Don’t you love your country?
November 13th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I’m not an economic libertarian, regardless of Baklava’s positions on this score. I would be perfectly happy with taxing all Democrats who believe in higher taxes for themselves.
That’d be incredibly fair and let’s see how many would agree. MItsu here is fine with paying higher taxes. I heard a couple of Hollywood actors and sports stars say that they need to be paying higher taxes.
Fine. Let’s have a law that says all these people need 50-70% income taxes. What’s wrong with that?
John Kerry paying me part of his and his family’s wealth is perfectly just in my opinion.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Mitsu judged me incorrectly saying, “I understand you’re a committed economic libertarian, Baklava, ”
Classify me incorrectly all you want. But you cannot show me how tax rate increases (in a few areas not just one) will help the economy leading into a recession.
Mitsu wrote naively, “We have a huge current account deficit and have for decades.”
Yes. Revenue into the goverment for 60 years has remained approximately 20% of GDP but close to 1974 the spending (expenditures by the federal government) went from 20% up to 23% and 24% of GDP.
You can’t take that simple equation and ratchet spending back down to 20% of GDP. You seem to think that it is helpful leading into a recession to solve the deficit problem by increasing tax rates. You have so little common sense and then to put me in some ‘extreme’ category when I simply know that we are headed to a deep depression because of obama’s proposals that you like….
Libertarians btw want to cut government spending by 80%. Where did I call for that? In fact - I would leave government spending at current levels as McCain called for and re-prioritize and reform so as to provide the same level of services so that nobody is ‘hurt’. Leading into a recession it wouldn’t be good to cut spending or increase tax rates.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Thanks alot, Mitsu. Thanks alot. That was really considerate of you.
Maybe, since you are so certain - you can tell us EXACTLY what it is in Obama’s record, exactly WHAT is is that he has done that has demonstrated to you that he will practice “good governance.”
Was it the bills he drafted and promoted? in the State Senate? In the US Senate?
What exactly?
Was it the way he fixed public education with other people’s money?
Was it his good work with Rezko fixing up the slums of Chicago?
SPECIFICALLY?
“Cause I am not seein’ it.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Neo’s right - the truth is starting to come out - Hamas told to keep quiet about meetings until after the election, Ayres now coming forward, and lots of others crawling out of the woodwork - the Newsweek article on the Kennedy Plan that scooped him up and promoted him, and passed the torch -
Poor mitsu. You have been so duped. I almost feel sorry for you.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
My daughter was an election official in College Station, Texas. She relates similar anecdotes. Guess who stole the election this time?
November 13th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Regarding “allowing” individuals who want to pay more to pay more is obviously silly; the whole point of restoring progressivity to the tax system is to act as a counterbalance to the tendency for the private economy, on its own, to create a massive redistribution of wealth upward. I.e., during recent years, middle class and poor wages have stagnated even as American productivity has gone way up, and the only ones who have benefitted from this are the wealthy. It makes much more sense to have a system in which everyone benefits from increased productivity — most certainly working people ought to benefit at least as much as the wealthy. Having a more progressive tax system would help in this regard.
The Obama tax plan would not increase taxes overall; it would increase them on the wealthy and reduce them for the middle class. The net effect would not be a tax hike on the general economy so this should not exacerbate the recession. Again, spending by the middle class is much more likely to jumpstart the economy than spending by the wealthy.
It does make sense to engage in limited deficit spending to stabilize the economy now, so I am in favor of stimulus packages in addition to the middle class tax cuts Obama has proposed. Once the recession is over, however, we should cut back on spending, find efficiencies, etc. I am certainly a proponent of a leaner government to the extent it is possible.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
FDR’s policies prolonged the Great Depression 7 years. You simply can’t have a deprssion that long without something driving it; the natural response of the market is to correct by punishing bad decisions and rewarding good ones.
It is the rich people and their “greed” that fuels small buisness with their investments. That’s more important than middle class spending, because it results in capital investments and paychecks and new companies and jobs in a direct manner. Tax the rich, particularly capital gains, and kill investment in small buisness.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Noe,
I am not happy with how this election turned out, and I agree with what you say in your post regarding how, only now are some in the media beginning to tell truths that they would not utter before the election.
Also, it is also most likely true that the Obama campaign will never be investigated for all of the illegal donations they received.
However, despite all the bad news, what I wonder is what do all independent/libertarian/conservatives plan to do about it?
Because one thing is crystal clear, despite an unpopular president, serious economic problems and an unpopular war it was still the republican’s election to loose and they did!!
I don’t want to hear about election fraud either. Obama won by a substantial enough percentage that it can be discounted, except ofcourse in Minnesota. We’ll see how that turns out. And we all know the simple steps that can be implemented (but probably won’t be) to fix that problem, but I digress.
No, what I wonder is for all of our anger and yes, some whining and sour grapes (me included), just what do we plan to do about it? How do we get the message out that capitalism is not bad, that limited government intrusion into markets and our personal lives is a good thing when the republicans provided no discernible contrast to the democrats?
When in power in congress, all they did was gorge at the trough like the democrats did. While they spoke of our freedoms, they brought us McCain-Feingold. While they spoke of free markets, most republicans sat on their hand as Chris Dodd sponsored bills to break down barriers between commercial banks and investment houses, putting the final nail in the coffin to the Glass-Steagall Act. While a few decried the abuse of the CRA , many were silent and went along because they and their big money supporters were making money.
How do we restore integrity to the republican causes of fiscal responsibility and limited government? That’s what I’m wondering, because we can complain till the cows come home, but until we do something to change the present situation, we are just part of the problem. I’m not trying to be trite, I really do wonder because something must be done if the tide of trans-national socialism is to be reversed. I’d love to hear real ideas.
The present crop of republicans has discredited the message by their short-sighted and greedy actions from the president on down. The only spot they seemed to get it right on was on the War on Terror. Their lack of credibility harms that cause too.
I would love to see you post on and begin a thread about how we begin to remedy the situation. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m up for some good ideas.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
You fail to look at the numbers Mitsu
You are lazy or negligent. The top and bottom income earners earned 18% more from 2000 - 2006.
Accounting for inflation and costs - it is true that income was not an 18% increase but a decrease.
But the only point of ‘restoring progressivity’ is to dinker with some sort of entitled fairness that you think is relevant.
Leading into a recession it ISN’T relevant. What should be the point is restoring opportunity and prosperity. Your focus has you off by a mile.
Look Mitsu, I know. I was a liberal in 1991. You have a huge sense of ‘fairness’ about you. But what is fair about millions of people losing jobs because politicians have a economic illiteracy. Politicians will justify their actions with ‘fairness’ and lingo that sounds good.
In reality - There have been MORE higher income earners in the past few decades and that prosperity has been good. It lead people to think there is such a disparity between the rich and the poor. But in reality there is just more people making it to the top quintile. The top quintile of income earners has grown. Post WW2 that quintile was a small percent of people. Now that quintile is a larger percentage of people. They have been buying bigger and bigger homes and the top 10% of income earners have been paying a larger and larger share of the income tax pie. It is now 71% of the income taxes that they pay. That is great !!! It is because there are so many more prosperous people.
Leading into a recession we do not want to raise tax rates causing more economic distress, less opportunity and more dependence on government. Period.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Oops! Sorry about the formatting error. Here’s how I meant it to be…
I’m not trying to be trite, I really do wonder because something must be done if the tide of trans-national socialism is to be reversed. I’d love to hear real ideas…..
November 13th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
There’s no need to RESTORE progressivity to tax rates as they are already progressive. Our tax system basically takes from the minority (taxpayers) and reallocates and redistributes to the majority (taxpayers and non taxed). Obama is merely on record as upping the ante and the stakes and sharing the pot with the those holding the losing hands.
Our deficit is due to a government that has spent more than it gains in tax receipts from already too high tax rates. If you have any hope of substantially reducing that deficit through tax increases you are delusional. Try stopping and then cutting the spending.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
How much more progressive can it be when the bottom 40% of income earners pay 0% of the income tax?
That’s infinity progressive !
November 13th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Baklava, you are evidently an ideologue, I am a pragmatist. I do not advocate progressive taxation because of some sentimental notion such as a “huge sense of fairness”. To me, that is just a silly abstraction.
I advocate progressive taxation because it results in a more efficient, more stable society and a stronger, more productive economy, overall.
Since the Reagan era the income of the top fifth of the country has seen dramatic growth, and the bottom 80% has stagnated. Income is now more concentrated at the top than at any time since the 1930’s. Is this good or bad for the economy? In my view, such income disparity results in a much less productive overall economy, as fewer people are able to purchase goods and services, constraining growth. Sure, high-end industries and luxury industries thrive, but this doesn’t make for a sustainable, robust long-term economic outlook. The net result is, with the exception of high tech, we’re falling further and further behind where we could be, economically.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Neo,
Methinks you misread the article about the “Africa is a country” leak. Yes, Eisenstadt is a made-up character, but the hoax was that he was the SOURCE of the leak, not the leak itself.
Here’s the quote from the article you linked:
“The pranksters behind Eisenstadt acknowledge that he was not, through them, the anonymous source of the Palin leak. He just claimed falsely that he was the leaker–and they say they have no reason to cast doubt on the original story. For its part, Fox News Channel continues to stand behind its story.”
According to the original source of the story, Carl Cameron of Fox News, the source was indeed a McCain aide.
I would add that Palin’s response to the leak was that her questions during debate prep (which is when the confusion allegedly arose) were “taken out of context.” Hardly a forceful denial.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
The only ones who would believe the undocumented unsourced claim about Palin’s African understanding, are those already predisposed to consider her stupid. Neutral persons would consider the smear absurd on its face.
Evidence? They don’t need no stinkin evidence! They believe it so it must be true!
November 13th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
mitsu,
Prior to the Reagan tax changes, we were in a death spiral of job creation. Marginal rates on capital and income made it extremely difficult for small businesses and small companies to get up off the mat and grow.
You clearly missed my long post on a prior thread about this. There was no economic efficiency during the sixties through the late seventies. There were only large companies in mature industries beginning to outsource overseas in a big way.
Wonder what would happen if we went back to the individual and corporate tax rates before Reagan?
You understand nothing about finance and economics. You are stubbornly hammering away ham-fistedly to that meme of yours, economic efficiency of steep progressivity, for too long.
The fact that I have a job doing what I like doing owes in great measure to the Reagan tax cuts. If capital gains rates and income rates were as high as they were under Carter and before I know with certainty I would not have the high paying job I have now. Only a young person coming of age during the seventies and early eighties could understand this.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
The “Assisting” that goes on with mentally handicapped voting — I know for a fact it goes on, because a few years back I was was ordered to do something similar.
At the group home where I work, a state bond issue had come up which would have affected funding for building new group homes. We explained that to our residents, and on election day I drove a van filled with 6 down to the polling station. I was allowed to go in the voting booth with them, and showed them where the bond issue was and what lever to vote ‘Yes”.
There were other things on the ballot besides that bond issue, & I asked each if they wanted to vote for any thing else.
Only one of them was able to read for himself, but he trusted me completely & asked me to “pick” — I didn’t.
I told him I didn’t have any “favorite”, but if he didn’t know who he wanted just leave the rest blank & only vote the bond issue question, which is what he did.
Another who didn’t read was aware enough to say his Dad always voted democrat, and he wanted to vote that too. I showed him how to do that.
The others had no clue, & I actually felt very uncomfortable. With them, I just pointed out the bond issue “yes” lever. They didn’t ask about voting for anything else so I didn’t bring it up.
Since then I personally never mention to the residents about voting as I usually don’t work Tuesdays anymore, but they still have the right.
This year 3 of them talked to me about Obama, they had heard of him from their sheltered workshop staff & wanted to vote for him.
That is until Palin came on the scene, & they thought she was “Hot”.
None of the 3 actually wanted to go out on election day to vote however, & the staff on duty didn’t push it.
All of them trust our staff however, and would dutifully pull whatever lever they were told to.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Mitsu fails to see the data that was provided.
mitsu continues to make characterizations that aren’t true without providing data.
Mitsu displays that he doesn’t like people prospering.
Mitsu displays that he would like to bring the economy down, make more people dependent, take away income and subside laziness and lack of motivation.
There. I just argued like he did.
Imagine a world where we just talk past each other and don’t give due diligence anymore just like him!!
Give my comments a look over again Mitsu.
Do the due diligence. Stop being lazy. I know you’ve been fed the line about income disparity but the data is there on these threads for you to see.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Baklava,
He thinks that things after Reagan reformed the tax system were worse. Did he sleepwalk through the Seventies? Doesn’t he understand concepts like economic stagnation, high unemployment, high inflation, LOW PRODUCTIVITY?
Yes, mitsu, the productivity of American industry and commerce was falling during your halcyon days of steep and highly progressive taxes. It was one of the reasons that inflation was stoked, besides high oil prices and a Fed that just had no discipline at all.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Fred, As the american economy boomed bewtween 1982 and 1989 unemployment dropped and income into the treasury doubled.
Also, real and nominal wages increased dramatically and especially for minorities. The gap during the 80’s between the races closed quite a bit.
Also, more people shifted from the bottom quintiles to the top quintiles of income and when the amount of people earning higher income jumped - it skews his pointed headed ideologued head charts to make it look like wealth is concentrated at the top. Of course when so many people in one nation do well and prosper it makes it look that way. Duh.
In all of my college classes, I’m glad I took Critical Thinking and Economics.
What is our focus here people!
To make the economy efficient? What does that mean?
No.
It’s to make more people have opportunity by letting businesses succeed, letting people invest with less penalties, allowing the economy to thrive and create jobs (govt doesn’t creat jobs - except the public sector service jobs).
To raise tax rates leading into a recession is simply boneheaded. Threatening to take more from the private sector (especially in areas that create jobs) is really not smart. It is quite an idealogue who would insist on doing something that has a negative impact on the economy!
November 14th, 2008 at 12:11 am
FredHjr,
I understand you’re in financial services. I know many people who work at very high levels of the financial services industry, including people whose net worth is in the billions. As I mentioned before, the majority of people working at the highest levels of the financial services industry support Obama and his fiscal policies. This is a big shift from the old days, where the wealthy voted for Republicans almost by reflex. In this last election, the wealthy voted for Obama.
Do you really believe none of these people understand economics?
Baklava: the reason I didn’t comment on your numbers is because your analysis was, sadly, nonsensical. You kept saying the “number of people in the top 10% has grown” — that makes no sense at all, because the definition of the “top 10%” is the top 10 percentile — i.e., it is always 10% of the population. The reason it has grown is the population of the country has grown.
The central point I am making is that you guys spend a lot of time and effort worrying that Democrats are going to turn the United States into a Soviet dictatorship, when in reality we already know what the consequences are of varying tax policies; having high marginal tax rates at the upper end does not destroy the economy; Sweden has high progressive taxation and they have the highest per capita income in the world. This is not to say I am advocating a return to New Deal style tax brackets.
The Reagan economic recovery was a deficit-financed recovery. Yes, the tax cuts stimulated the economy — but at the cost of massively running up the national debt. We are going to need to make big changes to really recover without simply borrowing our way out, as we did under Reagan and Bush Jr. We need to invest in R&D, in education, in training, in new technologies, in renewable energy, in infrastructure, etc. Not simply borrow and buy. I believe Obama will do this far better than McCain would have.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Baklava,
You’re preaching to the choir with me. But I picked up on his redundant “efficiency” theme to explain to the knucklehead that efficiency had been falling or stagnant during the time that he says were the “glory days.” When you pump money into the economy the way that Burns, the Fed Chairman, did with productivity being as stagnant or even declining as it was it was a bad formula for inflation, besides high oil prices.
Also, real wages during his “glory days” were no longer rising, which is another offshoot effect of falling productivity. When capital can be applied where it gets good returns, and tax considerations no longer distort the process… well, I’ll be damned if the results are not amazing.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Mitsu LIED when saying, “The Reagan economic recovery was a deficit-financed recovery. Yes, the tax cuts stimulated the economy — but at the cost of massively running up the national debt.
You should know better. Don’t lie.
The tax cuts stimulated the economy AND the Democrat controlled congress spent more and more. While the revenue into the government from 550 billion to 990 billion from 1982 - 1989, the expenditures grew at a faster pace.
Over and over again we SEE THE PROBLEM.
It is liberal big government spending. We are now spending 3 trillion per year and we can’t afford it! The answer is not tax rate increases leading into a recession.
The tax cuts over and over show that prosperity happens, jobs are created, and there is less dependency on the govt.
I can only conclude that Mitsu is for the poor being dependent and poor.
Sorry. You don’t positively impact the economy with a tax rate increase.
Checkmate.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Baklava: you’re making less and less sense. Reagan’s own budgets were massive, had Congress passed them unchanged the deficits would have been just as large. Democrats didn’t cause the deficits — Reagan’s own policies did.
Clinton was the one who brought deficits back under control. Remember the surpluses we had then?
As for your point, FredHjr, I’ve already said I am not advocating a return to the same tax brackets we had before Reagan. However, I AM saying that empirical evidence shows that high levels of progressive taxation ARE compatible with economic growth and prosperity, as history shows. I do agree that something did need to change in the 80’s, but I don’t agree that Reagan’s prescription was the right way to do it. Sure, perhaps reducing the steepness of the progressivity had some positive effects, but the levels of tax cuts he proposed did not work economically in the long run. Trickle down didn’t trickle down. Study after study shows that the Laffer curve is a fantasy. What we need is a return to sober economic policy and Reagan and Bush Jr. both have awful overall economic records.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Mitsu:
A large part of this the wealthy have simply sucked out of the productive economy far too large a proportion of the productivity gains of recent decades.
Such gains would be much better put into the hands of the middle class, in my view.
Cool! I’m middle class. I work hard and produce things. I have a family.
I’ll send you my mailing address.
In the name of efficiency, Why allow the government middlemen to take their cut?
When can I expect your check in the mail?
Hmmmmmm?
November 14th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Mitsu,
You are weak on your economic history of the period from about 1965 to 1980. I explained on another threat why there was broad and general prosperity in the period 1945 to 1965 - and there is nothing to suggest that high taxes and steep progressivity in the tax code are responsible for it.
We have arrived at a moment in history when most industrialized nations and some that are rapidly industrializing are lowering their taxes and regulations right at a time when we are likely to raise ours significantly. This is going to have effects on global capital flows and it will not favor us. The engine of our economy is highly subsidized, monopolistic large corporations - as what exists in Europe. We don’t have their levels of government jobs either. The engine of job growth in the American economy is small businesses, some of which eventually grow and get bigger. If you double capital gains taxes and slap entrepreneurs and business owners with much higher FICA taxes, you are not going to encourage these people to expand and grow. The marginal returns to them do not make sense.
I was born in 1955. I know what things were like growing up and on into early adulthood. Jobs were scarce. There were not enough new companies or opportunity. Why is it you cannot get a clear grasp of what that period was like? Do you work for government and were you insulated from all this?
Things changed dramatically after Reagan. There were a LOT more jobs and it was also more attractive for people to start their own businesses.
Correlation is not causality, with respect to your thesis that high taxes encourage economic efficiency and prosperity. It’s exactly opposite of the reality. When my generation came of age to need jobs and opportunity, not enough were being created in the environment you hail as the glory days.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Democrats. The most ENORMOUS Emily Litella moment ever. Their whole campaign of rage and wild indignation against the Republican administration’s policies?
“…. Never mind!”
November 14th, 2008 at 1:53 am
…Which is, I must say, the Only Good Thing about Urkel’s election.
But it cost too damned much. Our freedom for a mess of pottage.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Having scrolled a bit of the thread, I see that “sockpuppy” has showed up to do some Liberal Ass-Wagging.
Don’t you love it? the hysterical, foaming-at-the-mouth lefties who would have crucified Bush in their rage at losing two elections to him, are now preaching at us to “get over it”?
The mind boggles.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:32 am
The most striking story of national economic success is that of Chile, and it was accomplished by flat (not progressive), universal tax rate. It prevented government intervention into business and resulted in wery fast middle class expansion. That way “wealth spreading” was accomplished by market itself, much more efficiently than could be done by any government agency. And from common sense deliberation: how better efficiency can be achieved by taking money from the most efficient part of society, where these money create more money, and syphoning them to the least efficient or simply dysfunctional part of it, where they would be spent with no avail?
November 14th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I would love to know who writes mitsu’s paycheck.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:46 am
With regard to Mitsu’s theories I can only offer one small bit of data from my own experience:
During the 90’s each year I and my wife would receive a salary raise and watch our net take-home income decrease as we would creep into higer tax levels. We were in a negative feedback loop: higher salaries, less money. With the advent of the Bush tax cuts, we have seen our take-home income rise with each pay raise. As I believe all people act in their own selfish economic interest, why would I support any repeal of the Bush tax cuts???
Oh I almost forgot: we spent that money on vacations, big screen TV’s, cars, etc. Take that money away and we won’t spend. It’s that simple Mitsu.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Like I said, FredHjr, I don’t disagree that we were in an economic downturn in the 70’s, and I don’t disagree with all of Reagan’s moves, even some of the tax cuts and the flattening of the tax curve. I simply think what he did went too far, skyrocketed the deficit, and was not sustainable in the long-term.
We can throw around opinions about progressive taxation all day and night but the studies and empirical data support my contention that progressive taxation improves economic stability. Sure, it’s not a panacea and it needs to be balanced against other factors. I’m always a fan of balancing factors.
For example consider this study:
http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/a97aa8b1a6/publication/315/
which concludes progressive taxation does not impede growth but it does improve stability.
Again, we’re not talking about a massive increase in the marginal tax rate, in Obama’s plan.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
A great part of that Reagan deficit was due to rebuilding the military which had been gutted by Carter and the Democrats. I hate deficits but that buildup was imperative and for one of the few times since WW II the country got something in return for deficit spending - a modern, effective, military and the concomitant end to a half century of Cold War.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:39 am
We can throw around opinions about progressive taxation all day and night but the studies and empirical data support my contention that progressive taxation improves economic stability.
Yes, yes–It’s magical….
You’re wealthy, I’m middle class: Where’s my check?
You have an extraordinary opportunity to “put your money where your mouth is”: Act locally–send me and my family a check.
Or just knock off all the ‘progressive tax’ nonsense….
November 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Maybe I’m just stupid, but it looks to me like the banks that got bailed out decided to pay off their debts with the money, instead of turning it around and loaning it out to the same people they lost money on the first time.
Why are we not congratulating their effort to avoid needing another bailout to avoid bankruptcy? Yeah, the economy is screwed up because of it, but the screwup is because the people who refused to pay back their loans the first, second, and several more times aren’t getting more money to blow through, and are losing their houses, starving in the streets, and otherwise suffering from conditions that are as terrible as they are self-inflicted.
The problem is that we have accepted, as a matter of faith, that free money is a civil right, regardless of how the individual uses it. It’s been a marvel of bureaucratic maneuvering that kept the economy going this long already.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
>where’s my check?
Like I said, it doesn’t do anything for systemic economic stability for a single individual to “redistribute” his wealth downward; stability comes from the entire system having some progressivity in the tax code — a bit more than we have now. This is not, to me, a moral question or something having to do with “fairness” — it’s simply, for me, a pragmatic economic policy. And to repeat, I am not advocating a return to the extremely high marginal tax rates in place before Reagan … simply a shift back towards a little more progressivity than we have now.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Treating people in America like your own personal cogs is not “pragmatism”, Mitsu, no matter how much you dress it up.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I’m sure everyone at Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG, WaMu, etc. were all for Obama. You act like this was a matter of commitment, rather than naked self-interest.
Half of the financial services industry is on life support if not already defunct. A Republican may or may not provide government funds to a failed company. A Democrat invariably will. They believe every problem can be solved by throwing government money at it, and if it doesn’t succeed, it’s because the government needs to throw some more.
Hell, if I had crashed and burned financially, I’d vote for the Messiah too, if I could rein in my love for this country enough to do so.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Clinton was the one who brought deficits back under control. Remember the surpluses we had then?
You mean the surpluses created by the Republican Congress and the Peace Dividend of breaking the US Army by 10 divisions and the Marines by 20k and the Air Force of spare parts and maintenance/fuel and other goodies?
A strong national defense in Reagan’s Cold War times is “deficit spending” to you, Mitsu, because you have your own personal projects you’d like the government to spend our money on instead.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I know many people who work at very high levels of the financial services industry, including people whose net worth is in the billions. As I mentioned before, the majority of people working at the highest levels of the financial services industry support Obama and his fiscal policies.
The people at the top naturally want to stifle competition using government goon tactics. While large corporations and the rich, the people you know, have the connections and cash reserves to handle government policies, small businesses do not. Which is perfectly fine with the people at the top.
The majority of rich fat cats would support Obama and his fiscal policies. Aristocrats tend to hang together, in more ways than one.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
You still haven’t addressed the problems in the last, thread, Mitsu, even if Baklava raised similar points in this thread.
Link
November 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Here’s the problem:
Conservatives have lost faith in America and what it stands for. Most American politics and political discourse takes place within a liberal consensus - a broad agreement over liberal democracy, free markets, constitutional order, etc - that no serious politician could ever touch. Important as the disagreements over policy between McCain and Obama were, the difference between the two is minuscule in the grand scheme of things, as both candidates operated within that liberal consensus.
We might disagree over the top marginal tax rate; I might think it should be 39% and you might think it should be 35%, and that’s fine. We’re both still patriotic, loyal Americans who both seek the optimal policies to maximize life, liberty, and happiness in America, but we disagree over the policies to make that happen. We can disagree and still have a beer together, right?
But conservatives - not all, but the rump dead-enders and conspiracy theorists who pretend that the eight million more people who voted for Obama over McCain don’t count - have lost sight of this, this fundamental thing that makes America work. Instead of seeing policy disagreements as differences of opinion between two sides of a debate, both of which have America’s best interests at heart, you have come to see any disagreement with you as illegitimate. Your position on taxes, or abortion, or immigration, or whatever, has ceased to be one side of a debate and has become the only legitimate position that a loyal, true American can hold. Thus, any liberal governance becomes, by definition, illegitimate, and Obama’s landslide win becomes a theft, a conspiracy, a secret Muslim Indonesian Kenyan son of Malcolm X hypnotist farce. (I sincerely doubt that you would accept any Democratic win as legitimate; a Democratic win in 2008, regardless of circumstances, was almost certain to be seen as stolen and illegitimate by you.) And the most banal of liberal policies - a small increase in the top marginal tax rate to a level smaller than that seen under several Republican presidents - stops being a policy disagreement and becomes socialism, Marxism, blah blah blah yawn.
Look: liberalism isn’t socialism, it’s not Marxism, and it’s not communism. It’s liberalism, an ideology that holds that some market intervention and regulation is necessary in order to maximize overall prosperity and freedom. You can be slavishly devoted to deregulation and a perfectly free market and the result is the current economic meltdown. Deregulating the securities and derivative markets - done by Greenspan with the best of intentions - resulted in a few people getting very rich and a lot of people getting very poor. Accepting a little regulation results, ultimately, in greater freedom and prosperity. This is why liberals and conservatives - operating within the liberal consensus - decided it was better to intervene in the market and buy up failing banks (McCain voted to nationalize the means of production - oh noes, socialism!) rather than let the free market work, let the banks fail, and let lots and lots and lots of people lose everything they had. Democratic and Republican leaders agreed to intervene and regulate the market! They did so because we live within a liberal consensus. Liberals aren’t the anti-free market outliers here, you people are.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
PS - The financial crisis has nothing to do with the CRA requiring banks to give loans to poor (read: black blackity black black black) families (since CRA loans have been repaid at higher rates than non-CRA loans) and it has little to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which hold about 60% of home loans but only about 20% of severely delinquent loans). It has everything to do with deregulation. Wanting to regulate the market does not make one a Marxist. If it did, then people like John McCain, George Bush, Teddy Roosevelt, and Adam Smith were all Marxists. Sorry, but you’re the fringe here.
You will continue to be the fringe until you realize this (side note: Dear Jesus, please let the Republicans nominate Palin in 2012, love, America). America is a center-left country. Democratic presidential candidates have won the popular vote in four of the last five elections, and except for two years, a majority of Americans has voted for a Democratic House of Representatives for almost sixty years (thanks to gerrymandering, the American people didn’t get what they voted for). Your ideas are out of touch with what the American people want and, more importantly, reality. Get new ideas or sit around complaining about how Obama is a socialist Marxist communist radical black Christian secret Muslim terrorist who will radically raise the top marginal tax rate several percentage point oh noes! for the next four years and see how well that works out for you.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Mitsu,
empirical evidence shows that high levels of progressive taxation ARE compatible with economic growth and prosperity, as history shows.
Please source your point… why? Because the political system that claims that is called SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM.
Give me one example where high taxation led to economic growth and prosperity.
I really wish you would stop asserting lies as truth.
We can throw around opinions about progressive taxation all day and night but the studies and empirical data support my contention that progressive taxation improves economic stability. Sure, it’s not a panacea and it needs to be balanced against other factors. I’m always a fan of balancing factors.
First. Lets start with why one would want economic stability?
A stagnant economic state is the most stable you can have
If you want growth, you have to forgo stability. A new product destabilizes an economy.
Central command can’t react to such things, so it favors stagnation, and stagnation is stable. New ideas, new inventions, new business models, the constant fracturing and reforming at the next level… those are instabilities that those who want power cant stand, because those things lead to power rising they cant predict, and oppose.
So lets look at her study… lets check out her sources… lets see where her false ideas come from… who funds the institute? What is their agenda? What is the political motivation of the writers? And more.
First of all, the title has the code word PROGRESSIVE in it. This is a SYNONYM for communism, and has been so in the US for almost a century. It was used during the early part of the last century since communism had a bad ring to it. so they just used a different word.
Notice my source… (they are writing about themselves)
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production
I would read this and keep in mind obamas position and yours, and learn who is telling you that this is best. the people who are stating that their goal is a will to POWER, not good governance. 1 is kelo, 2 is your progressive tax, 3 is inheritance tax, 4 not yet, 5 federal reserve and collapse puling things to it through nationalization, 6 speech laws and censorshiop of internet (as being done), 7 farm subsidies and other manipulations like fuel, 8 the one the prols forget when they belive its all free – leads to work camps, 9 forced migration open borders, 10, public school system from prek, k, grade, junior, high, etc… all indoctrinal beasue run by the state.
So, first of all, your source is communists… this is like listening to mice describe why its better for cheese to be kept in mouse holes.
So the idea of a progressive tax was to destroy democratic and rule of the people over the state.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
(The conservative) position on taxes, or abortion, or immigration, or whatever, has ceased to be one side of a debate and has become the only legitimate position that a loyal, true American can hold.
Yeah! That’s why all the major newspapers and Television channels, celebrities and sports figures push that mainstream conservative position!
Everywhere I went, all I heard for the past eight years what what a great job President Bush was doing and about how taxes were still to high!
November 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
billy:
You’re very articulate, but your comments are, in many cases, ad-hominem, and not backed up by either recent history or common sense.
For example:
In my opinion, that’s a clear case of projection. Republicans have been grumbling about President-elect Obama, yes. But there’s been no talk of Republicans leaving the United States in droves, as Democrats threatened to do in 2000 and 2004. People have been screaming for the past eight years about President Bush squelching freedoms and not allowing criticism — all the while libeling and slandering him in the vilest ways imaginable — and Bush never responded to such accusations. In this campaign, it was Obama’s people, not McCain’s, who cut off access to journalists who wrote unflattering stories; it was Obama’s supporters that threatened legal action against people who criticized their candidate.
In short, there may well be people here who can’t stand to be disagreed with, and consider their side of the debate to be the only legitimate side. But it’s not the Republicans who act that way.
As for your advice about conspiracy theories, well, I certainly don’t advocate them. I don’t think Mr. Obama is a closet Muslim, or a closet Communist, or a wannabe terrorist, or any of the other silly ideas floating around. (I do think that he has the most extreme-left voting record of a Democrat-dominated Senate; that what few votes he can take credit for tend to alarm me; and that his poor choices of friends and mentors make me worry about his judgement of character. I don’t think any of that qualifies as conspiracy-theory thinking; your mileage may differ.)
But I’m not sure that eschewing conspiracy theories is all that bad. I’ve been hearing Democrat-flavored conspiracy theories for years — Bush is an idiot (and a jet-fighter pilot), Bush lied (by telling us what the whole world believed at the time) to drag us into an unwinnable war (that we are currently winning) so we can steal Iraqi oil (which we somehow forgot to do). In the meantime, Bush was going to cancel elections and nullify our Constitution and take away all our civil rights… oh, and by the way, Bush knew all about 9/11 ahead of time. And on and on and nauseatingly on.
That nonsense got your people elected to the Presidency and solid majorities in the House and Senate. Perhaps we should give it a try.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
For all the complaints about President Bush and the Patriot Act,
November 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Accepting a little regulation results, ultimately, in greater freedom and prosperity.
people treat government regulation as a guaranteed good result and they call themselves liberals?
No regulation, government or not, is categorically Good and it does not, ultimately, lead to greater freedom and prosperity any more than fighting the Civil War would ultimately lead to freed slaves. It depends. And it doesn’t depend on just “regulation” being good and “de-regulation” bringing problems.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Sorry about that last line… I should preview my drafts more carefully.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Mitsu,
I did this in parts since the system can be so annoying with an error.
I read his paper… its crappy for a person with so many cites… (which generally means that he is a hack who chose to make more money writing lies for an agenda, than writing truths for less).
Progressive income taxation may be especially appealing in industrializing economies that often have highly unequal income distribution, which seems to have increased in many countries.
Name one system that doesn’t have unequal income distribution and still have an economy and industry? The more places there are, the more that can find a place to occupy. Though his examples are the kind of propagandic bs that one should learn history and such to avoid.
While in China the poverty rate has fallen, there has been a rapid rise in inequality from 1985 to 1995 (WB, 2001b).
Well if you have brains in your head, unlike our mitsu, you would be able to think as to why these things are, and what this person is reffering to in half truth propaganda.
Well, unless everyone stands on the starting line at the same time, and each only walks in lock step with the other, you’re going to get more inequality. So either everyone is equally destitute, or people climb up to take higher positions and pull up others (homeless in America have cell phones – yet you say that trickle down doesn’t work. in other countries where the highs are not so high, homeless starve – here they are fat).
That statement is only true if you refuse to see the inequality between the person in the population and a person in the state.
Before 85… state people had luxuries… the average were subsistence
After the 85-95 period… state people still had luxuries, but now there were people occupying the middle between the two old groups (in a bureaucratic feudal state).
So somehow, those whoa re doing better, who are now closer to the top level, haven’t closed the gap, but made it wider…
Well, he left out the ruling class… and is only talking about the proletariats. And so if we have the same system as he is selling the ruling classes state is not considered. When Stalin was killing the kulaks for having too much, do you think he was considering the women who were married to the men in state that had furs, several samovars (sergey will understand this reference), and had special cards to go to stores that the proletariat never could get to.
If you include ALL THE PEOPLE in the measure, the disparity went down… but if you ignore the people on the top… then people moving from the bottom to occyupy the middle are causing more income disparity.. (yes, they have more than zero).
The potential for additional revenue can be large. While personal income taxes constituted 25.0% of all taxes in industrialized economies, they amounted only to 9.1% in industrializing economies from 1990 to 2001 (Bird and Zolt, 2005).
Well if someone in the US moves from the bottom 10% up to say the bottom 35%, they get more money… but the state gets nothing more in taxes… why? because they don’t tax this low.
Minimum wage, and zero taxes can create this situation as things improve!!!!!!
In other words, if the top earners fall, and bottom earners rise… as long as there is a zero base, then your going to have a lower total as things improve. In other words, as money moved from the weathy to the poor, the amount of taxes as a percentage of the whole will drop, as the bottom doesn’t pay taxes.
So a million dollars in one persons hand is taxed… a million dollars divided up into 10,000 units can double everyone’s salary at the bottom… and all the taxes that would have been earned on it would now be gone.
I was going to go on… but I choose to stop now…
The reason is simple… it’s a wash… when the paper starts bringing in south Africa as an example, then I know that it’s a big piece of crap that is meant to play on ignorant people like mitsu. Mitsu is the kind of person who doesn’t choose soures by validity, but byu what she wants to hear.
Swanepol and Schoeman (2002) find that South Africa’s taxation system has played a role as automatic stabilizer as tax revenue and the output gap are highly correlated. Hence, more progressive taxes could directly help stabilize output fluctuations.
That’s why she votes to have the state take money away from her, and is helpless to go into her neighborhood and find someone who is poor and fix their home, or buy them a car as a gift…
More tax progressiveness could impact volatility over time by reducing income inequality. Progressive income taxation tends to affect income inequality by equalizing the after- tax income distribution. Hassan and Bogetic (1999), for instance, find that progressive Bulgarian income taxes helped to reduce inequality. This finding is not universal, as Engel et al. (1998), for example, conclude that the Chile’s tax system had little effect on after-tax inequality.
Mitsu is not smart enough to see that their goal is not more productivity, not better living… but equality… homogenization of the masses into herd creatures… means of production that is all the same so that central planning might work.
His whole work is like perverts today quoting Kinsey… and yet, mitsu cant see that he talkes in maybes and coulds… not actual knowings..
If more progressive taxation, however, is associated with a more equal income distribution, it could contribute to less output volatility.
Not will, but could… so it might not, and he cant be blamed.
a more equitable income distribution could help to stabilize domestic demand and thus reduce financial and economic volatility.
Not will, but could
The same indirect link seems to exist between civil liberties and political freedom, whereby more civil liberties and political freedoms translate into a more equitable income distribution and thus more stable demand and output growth (Weller and Singleton, 2004).
SEEMS vs DOES…
How can one get more civil liberties in a system in which the state takes property away?
Do you see Russians exercising their civil liberties? No, the state doesn’t let them have enough nor let them develop productive economy. They are more equal (if you ignore the rulers like putin with billions), but they are not free..
The problem is that he defines civil liberties as what the state gives you, and he carefully qualified freedoms with political. Note that the base freedoms of the constitution are beyond politics, they are nto political freedoms…
You cant read papers without understanding if tey are using words differently…
Political freedom and actual freedom and primitive freedom are three difffernt things.
The first comes from the state, the second is the way amertica was, the third is what they promote to cause the second tyupe to collapse and justify the first one.
Mitsu… let me know what this sentence from your source means.
Progressive income taxation could impact physical capital formation. A more progressive tax system may reduce the amount of private saving available to finance domestic investment. This could translate into higher cost of capital and thus impede physical capital formation
Basically he says that with that, you have less capital, less capital peoplel have less to spend, and so, peoplel buy less… and if people buy less, they are more equal…
Because being equal is the goal of production, and progress…right? (but how can we be equal if we cant stop those others from moving ahead?)
Ever watch old vaudvillians level a table with a saw… its joke is that its an abstraction of this system, and every American knew it.
We take a little from here… then another side is larger… we take a bit more fro there… another side is larger… we try to give more to some… then others stop working waiting for their share for not working like the others.
Pretty soon, we are all equal…
But we have no production, and the only people that are living well are the few at the top, who are so far from us monitaritly that we can never ever even appeal to them.
Mitsu… please stop arguing that a progressive tax will lead to more… it doesn’t, the whole argument is that it will lead to less, and less is better because we are more equal.
The false part is from you, who don’t understand what procrustean means.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Conservatives have lost faith in America and what it stands for.
I believe the real problem is that you are speaking for people you don’t respect and will never honestly deal with.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Sorry about that last line… I should preview my drafts more carefully.
Nice job distinguishing the difference between the two parties.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Liberals aren’t the anti-free market outliers here, you people are.
Tell that to the blacks your party lynched with the help of the KKK, the Vietnamese you fauked over in Vietnam, and the Iraqis you wanted to ditch for your “free market” here in America, Billy.
I can see a fake liberal if he really starts mouthing off. And I wasn’t even trying to begin with.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
lAs I believe all people act in their own selfish economic interest, why would I support any repeal of the Bush tax cuts???
If you own a business, wouldn’t you take a 20% cut in your net profits if it meant you had the help of the government in bankrupting your competition?
November 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“Because the political system that claims that [high levels of progressive taxation ARE compatible with economic growth and prosperity] is called SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM.”
This is what I’m talking about - a banal disagreement over a minor rise in the top marginal tax rate is equated with socialism or communism. This displays either a deep and abiding ignorance of what capitalism, socialism, progressive taxation, etc, really are, or an attempt at deception
Eisenhower, with the help of a Republican-controlled Congress, raised the top marginal tax rate to 90% and the capital gains tax rate to the same level. Does this mean he was a SUPER DUPER communist?
November 14th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“No regulation, government or not, is categorically Good and it does not, ultimately, lead to greater freedom and prosperity any more than fighting the Civil War would ultimately lead to freed slaves.”
Why do I get the feeling you’re having an entirely different conversation that’s accidentally intersecting with someone else’s?
November 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Mitsu,
We already have what are probably the most progressive income taxes in the world:
Second, the wealthy don’t hide their money under a matress. They either invest it (capital formation) or they spend it. In the latter case, it goes to local people who spend it again. And again. I recollect an elaborate sailboat built on the coast of Maine which must have provided jobs for hundreds of people, from welders to cabinet makers to painters to ship modelers to organ builders, to name just a few. To say nothing of the restaurant and grocery stores in the area.
Your argument appears to be that it’s immoral to be wealthy, and that this abuse should be corrected by government action until we have equality of outcome, as structured by a few meritocrats. Or else that the members of the beltway establishment should have lots of money to toss around at each other.
History shows that these socialist ideas lead to misery.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
the huge costs of complying with the tax code. Compliance costs in terms of time have skyrocketed from an average of 17 hours and 7 minutes fifteen years ago to 28 hours and 30 minutes today. Lost productivity is in the billions of hours. The cost in dollars is now about $200 billion.
200 billion in lost productivity is leading us to higher productivity says mitsu. but of course her economists leave these thigns out, since they want equality. and zero is the only hard equal line…
for instance… if i am born before her, do we give her a copy of everything i have earned since my birth to equal me with her? so just birth throws the whole thing into array…
but if the solution is to be like the moonies under reverend moon, we will give all that we own to the leader and the leader will tell us how to live, and what work to do, and so forth.
why are the left wiling to make this practice a national one, when they would think joining the moonies would be a crazy cult thing to do? why dont they see that its teh same thing on two different scales?
well, the only way to make us all equal is to take everything away… and even then it wont be equal. as some will be healthier than others… which i guess is why they all promote eugenics and euthanasia.
the US has a PROGRESSIVE TAX code… 5% of the population pays 95% of the taxes for 95% of the population that is bitching about paying their 5% and mitsu thinks this is still unfair.
the top 5% should pay 99% of the taxes for the other 95% of everyone, then it will be fair, right mitsu?
mitsu… have you ever thought that a progressive tax (which is unconstitutinal), might cost a lot to implement, need a huge lawyer class that poor people cant afford, etc.
in other wrods, the inequalities you complain about are created by the progressive taxes!!!
The US tax code — with its “nine million word mountain of verbiage” — is so complex and “littered with impenetrable passages” that a fictional tax return given by Money magazine to forty-five tax preparers resulted in forty-five different calculations of the correct amount of tax due.
lets make it more complex, it will be mor productive. no… its draggin us down.
(meanwhile a flat tax would be fair in a way that mitsu cant see. take 20% from everyone… 20% of zero is? zero… 20% of a million? ok… that is one pool, deduct the state, and return the difference divided by the number of people. thats the whole code you need. what would that do? well lets see… the top will put in billions, and recieve a small check back… the poor will put in nothing, and recieve a big chcek back… the exact middle will send in and recieve the same amount back.
no code, no lawyuers, no huge tax comopanies sending your personal informatino to another country…
no lobbying to hcange the laws, no loopholes, and so on..
but no… she and the others want a tax system that was designed to collapse a free state and impliment totalitarian rule, and that will be more productive. hitler, mao, pol pot, stalin, kruscheve, chavez, putin, kim jong, and tons of others are shining examples of high produtivity.
forbes: our tax code kills jobs by penalizing people for “productive activities,” “punishes savings by taxing dividends,” and breeds corruption by “encouraging the crassest, crudest political conduct.” The estate tax “destroys capital.” Tax increases exacerbated the Great Depression. High tax rates discourage investment, hamper economic growth, and “make it extremely difficult for most Americans to amass vital savings for college, retirement, or the starting of a business.” Forbes also shows that the distortion of the health care system is due to the tax code creating “a disconnect between health care providers and consumers.”
the wealthy like these kinds of things… why? becasuse complex rules when combined with the top legal minds means they have an out. after all, the politicians are rich too… and so your basically asking dishonest parasites (politicians), and business men (who are being attacked by poor people), to decide to strip themselves and not strip you down.
mitsu… did you know our progressive tax system has more than 9 million lines of legal code to it?
of course thats the best thing to make the state more accesible to the poor. make a huge code that the poor either gets crappy help, or the wealthy get great help… and we all get to pay for the deduction…
and mitsu… did you ever realize why such a tax is unconstitutional?
if violates the equal protection clauses… how can people be treated equally by the state, when the state treats them unequal?
kind of like this
Doctor held liable for punitives even though he treated the patient competently
www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2008/10/doctor-held-lia.php
During a three-week trial (!), the rheumatologist’s argument that it would have been an undue hardship to pay an interpreter who cost more than the income he received for each visit was apparently undercut by the fact that the doctor’s tax returns showed he earned over $400,000 a year. Sorry, but how did this evidence get in? Unless the doctor is obliged to treat handicapped people at a loss, why is his personal wealth relevant here?
so wait mitsu… soon you will be targeted by poor people… and your salary will be used as evidence agaisnt you for having it.
remember, my family came from such places, and learned how they work the hard way…
Ex-Hitler youth’s warning to America
“I lived the Nazi nightmare, and, as the old saying goes, ‘A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument,’” writes von Campe. “Everything I write is based on my personal experience in Nazi Germany. There is nothing theoretical about my description of what happens
“It took me a long time to understand and define the nature of National Socialism,” says von Campe. “And, unfortunately, their philosophy continues to flourish under different labels remaining a menace to America and free human society.”
He writes: “The most painful part of defining National Socialism was to recognize my own moral responsibility for the Nazi disaster and their crimes against humanity. It boiled down to accepting the truth that ‘as I am, so is my nation,’ and realizing that if every German was like me, it was no wonder that the nation became a cesspool of gangsters. This realization is as valid today for any person in any nation as it was then, and it is true for America and every American now.”
it happens because the rules people like mitsu are putting in place cause them to happen.
the few people in state ask one part of a town to pretend their actions are good, and they will rob the rich side of town, and share the spoils with the poor. so the poor gather up their power, and htey give it to the few, and the few raid the rich. and when it comes time to share it with the poor, there is no longer need to, sicne the wealthy who operate by honor have been taken out by the politicos who have no honor, and the poor, is everyone else.
with a mandate to control outcomes… how can they guarantee that if this mandate doesnt come with implied totalitarianism?
if your sitting in a car and you say you control the outcome, and the car driver wants to go someplace else, how do you promsit the outcome of design?
in the old way, you convinced the driver to go where you want by merit. but there was no promise that the driver would, so politicians couldn promise outcomes.
but the new power invested in teh state by the people to attack themselves now allows you to ask the driver (proposition 8), but if the driver does not comply then you can shame, attack, push, force the driver to go… and if not then, you can remove the driver and then maybe put another driver in place… remove them if it doesnt work… but never ever ever admit its impossible no many how many drivers you ahve to kill to find one that isnt an enemy of your state.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“History shows that these socialist ideas lead to misery.”
And again.
Progressive taxation and government intervention aren’t socialism or communism. They’re the foundation of successful capitalism.
Capitalism does not entail or depend on a perfectly free market. Unregulated capitalism, for example, tends towards inefficient monopolies; monopoly busting is an intrusion by the government into the market that maximizes overall freedom and prosperity. The regulation of the securities market is another great example; an unregulated securities market creates a free market incentive for investors to issue and then, through securitization, obscure and sell at an instant profit sub-prime loans. The result is the circulation of toxic securities that ultimately gum up the entire works by restricting credit flows. Government regulation of securities might have made a very small number of investors slightly less wealthy than they would have been selling toxic assets, but it would have made most Americans - including the majority of the already-wealthy - wealthier.
Government intervention, then, is the bedrock of an efficient market. Calling for government intervention - busting monopolies, say, or regulating the securities market - is hardly calling for a command economy or the ownership of the means of production by the government.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
billy - Look: liberalism isn’t socialism, it’s not Marxism, and it’s not communism. It’s liberalism, an ideology that holds that some market intervention and regulation is necessary in order to maximize overall prosperity and freedom.
nobody was really shocked when a liberal turned out to be a Communist. The case of Alger Hiss, Franklin Roosevelt’s advisor and architect of the United Nations, shocked us because an active Soviet agent had gotten so close to the president (though, as it turns out, Hiss wasn’t the only one). But even Hiss’s defenders weren’t really puzzled by the possibility that Hiss was secretly working for Joseph Stalin; nobody asked, “How on earth can you be a liberal and a Communist at the same time?”
Why? Because liberalism was the most hospitable camouflage for Communism. You could advance the Soviet cause merely by pursuing a liberal agenda. The simplest proof is that William Z. Foster, head of the U.S. Communist Party, also sat on the national board of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU saw no contradiction in his working for “civil liberties,” as it defined them, and working for Soviet goals, for the simple reason that there was no contradiction.
Communism had been approvingly describ