Above The Law, a website devoted to Law Firms it seems, takes a look at what will happen to the income of associates if Obama is elected. Here is their analysis of a fictional associate making over 164 grand a year:
The effect is enormous. Betsy’s marginal tax rate goes up from an already ridiculous 42.5% to 51.4%—not including the new 6.2% marginal tax on your employer. Subject to how she structures her withholding, Betsy’s take home pay drops an average of $515 a paycheck—less in the early months of the year, but much more in the later months of the year. Add in the effects on her bonus, and Betsy loses nearly $20,000/year in take-home pay.
I added a third column: how big a pay cut would you have to take to receive the same take-home income? The answer is that Obama’s tax increases have a bigger effect on your income than a law firm cutting New York salaries by $34,000.
Yeah, someone making 160 grand isn’t hurting but don’t forget a couples income is considered as one in the eyes of the IRS and many couples living in the high cost of living areas can easily make that amount. That’s going to hurt.
The thing is that someway, somehow, all these programs Obama wants to institute, including the Global Poverty program, will need to be paid for somehow. How? By taking it from the backend of our employers. Those people who sign our paychecks. But those businesses can only stay afloat if they make a profit, basic economics. So they keep those profits by taking away raises, benefits, new employees and so forth.
Which means we are back to 1978 and Jimmah….
But Democrats being Democrats, they don’t think we should keep our own money…..it should be controlled for the common good. Here’s Jay Tea at Wizbang about his own state, New Hampshire, a state with a anti-tax history:
One of the hallmarks of New Hampshire politics has been a staunch anti-tax platform. We are the only state with neither a sales nor an income tax, and most of us like that.
But that could be coming to an end.
There’s a group of people pushing to rework the state’s tax structure. The Boston Globe is lauding them, pointing out that the state has a $50 million deficit in the first year of our two-year budget. Obviously, something has to be done, and these people say that raising taxes is the solution.
I find myself wondering what the hell happened. Astonishingly, the Boston Globe answers that question. But they have to bury the info, lest too many people manage to put two and two together and come up with “Democrats.”
Way, way down in the 12th paragraph, the Globe realizes it can’t cover up the essential facts any longer:
The debate over taxes is the latest sign of political change in New England’s most conservative state, where Democrats currently control both houses of the Legislature, and Lynch, a Democrat, is in his second term. Last year, some conservatives cringed as lawmakers approved a 17 percent state budget increase. Others marveled at the state’s adoption of civil unions for same-sex couples.
That’s right. Feeling their oats, the Democrats jacked up the state budget 17% (I’ve read it as 17.5% in other places, places I trust more than the Boston Globe, but even 17% is bad enough) in a single year.
After years and years and years of getting hammered as “tax and spenders” and derided and mocked and run down, the Democrats finally got swept into office in 2006. And as soon as they did, they spent the hell out of the state’s coffers, and now need to jack up taxes to pay for it all.
This is “change,” all right.
There’s that change word again….where have I heard that term before recently hmmmmm?
See author page
(no problem, Missy)
That Red Country tax calculator is a joke.
All the tax increase on the top few percent of the population does is take away the Bush tax cuts. I didn’t see the rich hurting when Clinton was president.
Where was the ‘redistribution of wealth’ outrage when you got your ‘stimulus’ check?
I’ll call a spade a spade however. Obama’s plan is a redistribution of some money … but WEALTH? not really. Those at the bottom of the ladder would get a relatively modest refund maybe 500.00 – (not of your money, unless you happen to be in the top 1% or so).
But when we compare that to what the that top 1% get it is a pittance.
When we take down protections against shipping jobs overseas, as we have done, or bringing workers into the country, the middle and lower classes take, based on percentage of income, a huge hit. We are now competing with workers making $2 an hour. Who makes more? The owners of the means of production, who now can get bigger profits. Is that redistribution of wealth?
How many times does, say, Monsanto use the publicly financed patent and trademark office? Would they use the public courts to protect them? How often do you get patents? They are essentially government granted monopolies, (not that they are necessarily bad, but google “copyleft” for other opinions) …..Is that Redistribution of wealth?
The Bush admin and Republican congress uses your tax money to buy drugs for Medicare at full price, refusing to bargain for better prices. … Redistribution of Wealth?
There is book you can download for free called THE CONSERVATIVE NANNY STATE You might not buy its arguments, but take a look at it before you jump to heavily on the idea that the rich are completely self made and therefore should be entitled to everything they earn.
Clinton left us in a recession and the stock market was tumbling affecting people’s retirement. It’s not just the rich that are invested in the stock market. The Clinton economy wasn’t as rosy as some like to pretend. Manufacturing was leaving during his reign, the mines, textiles and timber took a big hit. He put millions of acres of the west into parks, leaving all those working in the mines, timber and minerals, unemployed.
To compete with workers making $2.00 per hour, we raise taxes on our own business. Smart.
I don’t think Clinton was great economically, either ie- NAFTA – my point was that the rich were not hurting under his admin.
Obama is proposing LOWERING taxes 3000 per employee hired in this country. And, believe it or not we still give tax breaks to companies that outsource jobs – he wants to end that. Not sure about McCain, but I think he has voted in the past to keep tax breaks on outsourcing companies.
And, not unrelated:
Since Johnson, in fact, every Democrat has increased revenue more than spending. However in the opposite case, under all five Republican Presidents, since Nixon, government revenue has decreased and spending has increased. This is positive, unambiguous proof that cutting taxes does not increase revenue.
(And, we are talking about raising taxes only on the top 5% – something that McCain is misleading about when he tells the masses Obama wants to raise YOUR taxes, unless you happen to go to his $25,000 a plate fundraisers.)
Funny how people don’t seem to realize that the 80/20 rule applies to almost all of life. 20% of American’s pay the taxes that support USA. This is a clear case where Obama is setting up the country for econmic downfall. If Obama increases taxes on that 5% of Americans the buck will be passed on to the other 95% in one of many ways. Jobs will be cut. Benefits taken away to make up the difference. The top 5% will take their money and jobs out of the country. Obama wants to make everyone believe that the top 5% are the ones that will pay the increase but this is no different than higher gas prices leading to higher grocery prices. Small Businesses in the United States cannot afford to pay any extra taxes and remain profitable so that they continue to stimulate our economy.
I think Obama or McCain should propose a federal income tax on all bought items with the exception of food. If it is true in life that the people who make the most money spend the most money then the American people would decide which companies stay in business and which go.
This also means that illegal immigrants, cash businesses, and hard working individuals ALL PAY TAXES no exceptions. If you buy a car it’s taxed, a home it’s taxed, clothes their taxed. The business world is already set up in most businesses for this plan. It would be very easily implemented and no one could evade the system. By supporting this system everyone would benefit. The government could do away with individual audits and concentrate on businesses. Business who offer a good product or service would stay in business, the government could track what businesses are in trouble based on federal income taxes paid monthly or quarterly. It would help the USA head off an economic crisis before it starts by being able to see the spending patterns of the consumer.
We truly are a nation of stupid stupid people if we truly believe that 5% of Americans are going to be affected by a tax increase. We will all pay in some way shape or form. The top 5% didn’t get there because of burning money for the politicians to spend. Mark my words this tax increase will hurt everyone down to those making minimum wage.
These poor rich people who will cut back on business because of a 3% increase in their income taxes (not even the taxes on their businesses, which under Obama will get a 3,000 credit per new employee), well, it won’t work like that.
The shocker – Gross Domestic Product has been going up, up, up, (till now) and wages? Flat or down!
THE WEALTH HAS ALREADY BEEN REDISTRIBUTED – TO THE WEALTHY!
SHARE OF ECONOMY GOING TO WAGES AND SALARIES DROPS
FOR UNPRECEDENTED 14th STRAIGHT QUARTER (2004)
“The share of real income growth that has gone to wages and salaries during the current recovery has been smaller than during any other post-World War II recovery period, while the share of real income growth that has gone to corporate profits has been larger than during all other post-World War II recoveries. It also found that the share of national income consisting of wages and salaries is at the lowest level ever recorded, with data available back to 1929″
The Commerce Department data released today on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product — which measures the overall size of the economy — indicate the continuation of a troubling trend for the country’s workers. The new data are for the third quarter of 2004 and show that a steadily dropping share of the nation’s income is going to wages and salaries. At the same time, data through the second quarter show that the share of GDP going to corporate profits has increased substantially.
@Robert:
The tax impact on business will be much greater than you claim.
Furthermore, how many say $40,000 per year jobs will be added as a result of that $3,000 tax credit? Not many in my estimation. Especially when you consider that a $40K per year employee probably earns more like $65K by the time the business owner pays payroll taxes and benefits for that person.
Socking It to Small Business
Lower taxes = Business Growth = More Hiring
Aye Chihuahua:
Lower taxes = Business Growth = More Hiring
we have heard this song and dance for the past 8 years and from every republican since Regan..
the trouble is it’s total BS…
Who’s tax plan truly saves you Money? for me it is Obama!!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
There ya go, Folks… As Sky55110/RAP aka CRAP says:
Truly indicative of the “ME ME ME” generation. A hallmark of the new JFK revamped infamous phrase..
Congrat, CRAP. In 12 words, you have summarized the socialist progressive DNC. That could be a new record.
@Real American Patriot:
Sky,
First question:
Ever heard of the Laffer Curve?
You should read about it.
Second question:
Have you ever worked for a poor person?
Now Mata… Don’t pick on CRAP… After all, that’s quite an admission that his/her/it’s vote can be bought.
But is that the “REAL AMERICAN” spirit?
I think not!
Aye Chihuahua:
Lower taxes = Business Growth = More Hiring
Interesting article, but lets see how it plays out in life. Lets take the example from the article and play it out.
MataHarley –
If a person making enough to benefit from Obama’s tax plan (I would bet that would include you) will want to vote for Obama, that’s greed?
What about the patriotism of, say, Haliburtan, Cheney’s company, making huge profits on no bid contracts in Iraq and New Orleans, and moving to Dubai to avoid taxes? Who will the owners of that company be voting for… Obama, who will be far more likely to crack down on that kind of crap? Of course not.
Those people are the base of the Republican party, which manages to convince people like Joe the Pumber (NOT!) that it is him whose success they care about.
Boy is this thread old… There is more current analysis on the repercussions of Obama’s tax plan at my October 25th post on what Obama is *not* telling Americans about his tax cuts. This is an analysis via the Tax Policy Center, and the Wall Street Journal reporting.
It is at that post, Robert, which will directly respond to your comments. I will summarize here, but suggest to go read more in depth at the post above for a clarified picture of Obama’s money mismanagement. Remember, you are only talking about how he wants to handle the income tax reporting. Just where do you think the money for his health, education and energy plans will come? How about his and Barney Frank’s proposed Dept for Peace and Non-Violence… as well as the other sundry goverment expansion programs and personnel he wants to create?
So if you wish to believe that Obama’s tax policy halts at the “95% of Americans”, and you’ll not see your taxes go up for his other socialist plans (aka taxpayer funded college, taxpayer funded preschool, taxpayer funded work training programs, taxpayer funded health care… yada yada), then you’re only eyeing a single “perfect” apple in the barrel of rotten ones, and buying a bushel of BS.
Going back to the Tax Policy Center analysis, the Obama tax plan is not the single issue item you want to focus on…. ala the catchy phrase “95% of Americans will get a tax cut”. You need to look at the numbers of all he’s planning to do, and how he’s planning on getting the $4.3 trillion it will take by 2019 to do it. And BTW, that only included about 70 or so plans of the over 170 some he wants to create. So the Tax Policy Center says the estimates are low.
Apparently, reading thru their analysis, Obama’s strong suite is not math.
INRE your comment to Aye Chi… there is no need to see how it plays out in life. We have ample history in both the US and Europe of the effect of higher taxes on businesses, and it’s effect on reducing the generation of wealth. Secondly, the taxes are on the gross profit, not net, which can make a huge difference to a contractors using the flow thru business structure (ala, taxed as personal earnings). They may get a big job in one year, and have a dry several months. Most tuck away the profits from those big jobs to pay bills and payroll thru the next dry spell. However that money will be taxed, and no longer available.
Then there’s the removal of the SS cap, which also increases taxes. For a good example of this, there’s an older araticle at Dealbreaker.com which uses a first year MBA investment banker, and what happens to his $280K wages ($105K in salary, and a now taxable $175K bonus with removal of the SS caps by Obama). This doesn’t take in consideration the extra expense of the employer for the SS cap removal, BTW… and side consequence.
Here’s the graph with summaries below, but the article is also worth reading to clarify. Bottom line, if there’s $20K difference with your example using $500K above, then you’re missing something in the reality of it all… and that comes into play with the Obama tax plan he’s NOT telling you. See what I mean?
I also suggest you go read about the low estimate $4.3 trillion he’s not telling you about… and how those figures don’t jive either. Obama can’t seem to name a program he’ll drop. And he can’t afford all he wants…. not to mention, he’s basing figures on an economy that is not as healthy as it was, and isn’t likely to bounce back quickly.
It’s not just about “95% of Americans get a tax cut”. But it sure makes for good campaign fodder…
MataHarley:
Almost too many points to ponder here.
First this from CNN Money
The bottom line: McCain’s claim only works by using an overly broad definition of what counts as a “small business” – and even with that definition, fewer than 2% of business owners would be hit by Obama’s proposed rate increase. For those who are affected, the increase would be levied only on a part of their earnings, not all of them.
2nd point – social security payroll tax increases
The figures you were citing were old – based on an earlier statement, from 2007, I think –
Obama’s latest plan is as follows from the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan educational organization.
In your posted table, the individual would not have an increase in SS tax.
Will Obama increase in payroll taxes? Yes. But again, it is on the highest executive class, (and not at near the cost your source indicated) and not on the average worker who is the backbone of production of goods and services, and who makes up the vast majority of employees.
3rd point
On spending, lets look at a non-partisan site instead of your inflated partisan CATO number. It offers a very in-depth analysis based on non-partisan sources.
But all that leaves out discussion of the meta point, which I will address in another post.
Wealth redistribution, Sarah Palin Style.
Palin’s Movement Urges ‘Godly’ To ‘Plunder’ Wealth of The ‘Godless’
YIKES! Does that mean everyone not in the New Apostolic Reformation, all Jews and Muslims?
Robert, it’s baffling why you want to be a one trick pony, so to speak. You keep speaking of the Obama tax cuts as if that were the entire economic plan. So let me make an analogy that, while simplistic, might establish that we are speaking of two different things.
I’m a vendor, running a sale on a box of Cheerios. I’m guaranteeing you that I’ll sell you the cheerios for 30% off. But in the fine print, in order to get that 30% off, you are also required to buy milk, berries, natural sugar, orange juice, eggs and some pork sausage.
Am I legitimate is saying you are getting 30% off on your cheerios? As Palin would say, “you betcha”. Are you taking on more debt, and paying more out of pocket to get that 30% off on your cheerios? Absolutely.
This is the problem with Obama’s tax plan. I never have, and never will address only that ever morphing threshold of wealth that Obama can’t seem to set. Because it’s not just about that cut, but the other tax increases he’s proposing to cover the money lost.
And only one of those many increases is on the SS tax because Obama is removing the cap. So you are incorrect when you said:
Had you clicked on the link and read the article, you would know that the first year MBA investment banker got his $280K income from a $105K salary (subject to SS taxes), PLUS $175K bonus money (also subject to SS taxes because of the cap removal).
Then you ignore the increase in costs the employer has for that cap removal as well.
Despite all the cash that Obama tries to steal here and there, the numbers for his “wants” don’t add up to all that he can steal or scalpel out of the budget.
Now, INRE Panetta’s US Budget Watch document. The difference between that analysis and the Tax Policy Center analysis (which forms the basis of my $4.3 trillion post linked) is that Panetta’s group used the candidate’s website for their primary data to scrutinize. The Tax Policy Center – which *is* a non partisan organization – got more indepth figures and details on the individual government departments proposed directly from the campaign advisors. Fact is, the candidate’s sites and their supplied PDFs are relatively generic.
Also in dispute from Obama’s website presentations are what they “claim” to be able to spend or save, vs what the economists say is more realistic. Take for example that Panetta’s group just accepted Obama’s proclaimed $77 bil in closing tax loopholes and shelters. The Tax Policy Center’s analysis looks at his figure and says that’s just not realistic.
And this is the johnny-come-lately-to-the-battlefield info from the economists that don’t apparently have Obama stardust in their eyes that are speaking out loudly enough for even CBS to hear. Wow… where were they months ago?
Summarily, Obama’s eyes are bigger than we, the taxpayers’, wallets. Obama himself has already been called on it enough… evidently in private since the media chooses to ignore his “fuzzy math”… and his campaign has already drawn up a plan to spring on his faithful to “lower expectations” on his campaign promises.
In other words, give me your vote today, but understand when I can’t do what I promised. This is “change we can believe in”? Hang, this is politics as usual, as far as I’m concerned.
While you demonstrated a glimpse of sensibility on economic issues… albeit ignored the Obama spending not included in the analyses you choose to cite… you’ve totally lost it on the visiting Kenyan pastor to the Wasilla church. Hey, wonder if he knows the Obama family, eh?
This is not her regular pastor. Having an African pastor with their cultural beliefs bestow a blessing on the Alaskan Governor is hardly in the category of sitting in the pews of a Black Theology church doctrine for two decades, and never hear the racial hate it incites.
This is so beyond the scope of the sane, that it’s not worth these few sentences I have posted. You have, however, managed to discredit your voice here thoroughly with your not so nuanced suggestion of impropriety and scandal. So I’d say this is my last cyber conversation with you.
Mata –
I am talking about taxes because that is the subject here, and I don’t have unlimited time.
I DID read the article, but did you read the one that I referenced? Your article referenced old (2007) statements, I think. Obama’s latest plan has the so-called doughnut hole with $0 SS taxes from 102,000-250,000, and then, only at 2-4%. That means that for his 280,000 income the difference would be at most 2-4% of 30,000 as the difference, split, with employer. Given that he has additional deductions, such as charitible deductions it would be brought under the 250,000. Even if that is not the case (I am not familiar with all the tax intricacies, nor am I including credits for healthcare coverage, I apologize for cutting corners in my figures – I have a life) the maximum difference would be 1200 – (30,000 x 4%) – 600 for the employer and $600 for employee, barely worth mentioning.
Considering that this guy, to get his 175,000 bonus probably brought in minimum of $350,000 for the employer, do you really think the extra 600 will cause him to be let go?
But, the bottom line, to go beyond taxes, is, the Reaganomics – free market – laissez-faire – trickle-down – supply side – deregulatory, Ayn Randian, libertarian economics has never worked in the long term. We can, and have had very stable times – 1940’s -1970’s destablized by combination of Vietnam War bills and OPEC embargo – when top tax rates were as high as 90% and much of the time around 70%, (or even take 50% average, after loopholes were applied.) There were rational trade policies, (yea, protectionism) that assured that we wouldn’t be competing against $1 an hour workers around the world, something that other countries do routinely.
Now, after nearly 30 years of first vilifying government (and the commons, group efforts to do what individuals cannot do) then, (according to neocon leader Norquist that he wants to shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”) through design or just neglect, Bush has taken government, with McCain supporting him all the way, to where it is deregulated, broke, hiring private contractors at far greater cost than government employees, with tax policy and loss of jobs creating huge disparities between the top 1% of the rich and the rest of the country. We no longer produce much of anything, unless you include deregulated pyramid schemes like hedge funds and derivatives and the profits of the our country go to multinational corporations, instead of staying in the communities where they are made.
Unless you have service that you offer, or find creative ways to move money around, or you have that rare invention that you can take to China to manufacture, opportunity to get to the upper class has decreased significantly. We just can’t compete with the Walmarts, the Indians, Chinese, the Mexicans (in our country as well) …etc. That is the pie-in-the-sky that we all hope to get to, though few actually do. In service of that dream we don’t want to take the chance that our taxes will be higher when we get there.
Alan Greenspan, appointed by Reagan as the behind-the-scenes architect of our present dilapidated economic system (and crumbling, ignored infrastructure), has just said OOPS! I guess I made a mistake. Of course McCain is behind. He rarely saw a regulation that he liked, until of course the current crap hit the fan. Americans aren’t stupid.
Mata – show me a single long term example where these policies have been successful for more than 20 years or so. (Other than times when populations have been decimated, or huge new frontiers are opened.) It is the cancer stage of capitalism, where it gets top heavy and collapses under its own weight. The pendulum has been pushed so far to the right, with such terrible results that the Regan revolution has now made this country ripe for a swing towards the left. If the results had been good, we wouldn’t be heading in that direction.
Whatever you may say, the American people believe their eyes – and wallets. Gross Domestic product (see earlier post) has climbed while wages have been flat, at best.
We can go back and forth about the details of economic plans that we both know may never see the light of day. The real question is which paradigm we choose to follow. We can both agree that the choice is crystal clear. We have 2 courageous and inspiring individuals who represent opposite sides of the spectrum. Choose your horse and ride it.
There we go again, another moonbat. WOW! Robert, you are the 34th, I believe. Welcome to the moonbat party!
So, are you willing to wait and see with an open mind what might happen?
yours truly,
Moonbat
Robert says
I don’t know how many financial and government structures in history you think that mimic the US of A, Robert. We are unique, and that is why our historic growth and rise to power is so notable in history.
So let’s compare it to the only comparable… ourselves. And its been going and morphing now over 230 years.
It used to be more profitable. Tarifs and protectionism in a different era (global trade was not feasible due to physical transport and communication restraints then….) kept the federal coffers full.
We didn’t have national debt until the New Deal and the government started not only it’s expansion into welfare programs for domestic issues, but it’s uncontrollable growth and tenacles in administrative heavy departments. Even at that, the times when it got out of control was also the times we cut the taxes and reduced the Congressional budget allowance to correct. They are like spoiled rich kids, spending every penny and more of daddy’s money.
So the simple solution is as logical as the nose on your face. You cut the spending of Congress, and give back the taxes to the job creators so they can grow and expand.
Now why don’t you give us an example of a successful socialist economy… one that keeps us in the style and power that the world has grown accustomed to us having so we can bail their sorry asses out of trouble worldwide?
I’ve been following this “debate” for a little while, but have neglected to comment until now. I’d like to start off by saying that despite how heated some of the postings have been, both sides have made very strong points. Having said that, let me also preface by saying that I’m not a supporter of our president elect. This is why:
I’m a middle class citizen, making $30k a year living in a relatively stable and affordable local economy. I haven’t done any in depth research to determine whether or not I would be affected and how, by the plan Obama says he will implement. Regardless, they are only words and I think the past has shown that candidates can say anything and not follow through during their term. On the surface, it would seem that I stand to benefit from Obama’s tax plan, but let me be clear about this, I don’t want his hand out.
We live in an imperfect world. That fact cannot be changed. We have a range of wealth in this country because it cannot exist any other way. If everyone were millionaires, no one would be rich. Inflation would simply go up and a gallon of gas would cost $100, along with everything else. In order for someone to be rich, someone else has to be poor. Just like there is only a finite amount of energy, that moves around neither created nor destroyed, so is the case with money.
I struggle to pay all the bills, I can’t afford a house, I don’t have the luxuries that come from being wealthy, but that doesn’t mean I don’t aspire to be better off. It’s not fair to tell someone “it will cost you 10% to live here, but it’ll cost him 35%”, just because he has more money. Success should not be punished due to others incompetence. The wealthy already pay more in taxes simply because they have more, and that’s okay, but taxing them more just because they have more to give, that’s simply not right.
A lot of the wealthy today, but not all, came from nothing. Where were their hand-outs during the tough times they lived through? They made it, not because of Obama, the government, or anyone else, but because they worked hard to do so.
If you have an extreme disability that keeps you from being able to ever fend for yourself, then you deserve a break. Anyone else who has the ability and chooses not to use it, or doesn’t because the failed to learn, deserves what they have. There are always circumstances that must be considered outside of these broad scenarios, but for most part, people can make a better life for themselves, if they choose to. If you’re in a bad fiscal situation, fail to use protection, and end up with five kids, why should anyone (wealthy or not) be supporting your bad choices? I realize that it’s not the kids fault, and they should be looked after, but giving money to someone who already has a poor track record when it comes to decision making, seems like an equally bad decision.
The wealth of this nation has EARNED their money, through whatever means. It’s theirs, and they should have the choice to choose what to do with it. How would you feel being told how to spend your money? Higher taxes is another way of telling you what you can’t do with that money. Should we keep jobs in America? I think so. But with unions, factions, and other bodies out their striving for more pay and less work, I can see the temptation in out-sourcing. I don’t doubt that some of that is greed, but there are some non-discernable gray areas out there that just can’t be covered with blanket statements.
The richest man in the world, Bill Gates, at one time was worth around $70 Billion. If you took that, and evenly spread it about the roughly 400 Million U.S. residents, each person would get $175. That’s One-Hundred-Seventy-Five Dollars. No millions, thousands, or even hundreds for that matter. Take ALL the wealth in the U.S. and redistribute it evenly. Now Everyone is Middle Class, no one is rich. Within 5 years, the people that had money have it again, the people that didn’t have blown it.
Let’s face it, we ALL have it pretty damn good in this country. The homeless have shelters to go to. The wounded have ER’s that cannot turn anyone away regardless of their inability to pay. Move to a 3rd world country where those same people would be left to freeze, starve and die. People need to learn to live within their means, and that includes me. I don’t need a new car, cable, internet, leather couches, fluffy bed sets, Outback Steakhouse or McDonald’s for that matter. I struggle because of my wants, not because I can’t provide myself with my needs.
I’ve seen people on welfare who drive nice cars, buy their kids a $200 pair of Nike shoes, hell even have iPhones. Is that what taxing the rich is supposed to accomplish? Providing the lower class the luxuries of the upper class, that they DO NOT need? Call it Socialism, Communism, Change, whatever you want, but history has shown that it simply does not work.
Maybe Capitalism isn’t working out now like we’d hoped, but we would not be the great nation we are today had it been any other economic structure. I relish the few freedoms we have left in this country, and the choice to spend my money how I please is one of them. BUT, like anyone else, I have the ability to make whatever choices I want, but no one can choose the consequences of their actions.
I don’t plan to be where I am 5 or 10 years from now, but I have to pay my dues just like most people before me had to, and hopefully most people after me will have to. I don’t want less taxes now, but I don’t want to fund Obama’s tax plans later. Obama has a fantastic vision for our country and great ideas for our future, but his utopia simply cannot exist on this earth, ever.
Well, Michael… you may have waited a long time to weigh in, but you were well worth the wait. Welcome, and thank you for your oh so admirable perspective.
Mata you made the following statement –
But unfortunately it doesn’t jive with the facts. (Note – this is a partisan article – but I believe the statistics it uses are beyond reproach. You may draw a different conclusion from them.)
It concludes with ample evidence:
Under EVERY Democratic president since Johnson, revenues have been higher than spending. Under EVERY Republican president, it has been the opposite. – Deficit spending.
More to come later on other points.
@Robert:
So What if that is the case? I’m not debating the truth of who spends and collects more during their term (I haven’t done the research, nor do I care to). You’re in favor of a party and their candidate tearing down a particular class in the name of more income? If that’s your objection then so be it, but raise taxes on everyone, not just the wealthy.
All facts and preferences aside, past and present, you’re okay with Obama completely turning, what we know as America, upside down? You’re okay with others being penalized for the laziness of others? People who are fortunate enough to have and want to help out the less fortunate should have that right, but they should not be forced to. If you donate money to a particular charity because your views align with theirs, then that’s something you would feel good about, but what if you don’t agree with the charity that government is going to MAKE you contribute to?
It should not be the governments concern to see after everyone’s well being, especially those that don’t contribute to its success. Likewise, it should not be in the governments ability to institute bills that would negatively affect our well being. What would all the people crying out for Obama’s help do if there were no government and we were all left to make it on our own, you know, the way things used to be?
You really want us to become a welfare nation, where there is no real incentive to work? If you could live in this country, do nothing and be taken care of, what’s the point? So maybe I won’t have the really nice things in life, but I know all my needs will be taken care of even if I decide not to contribute to the economy. You want the hard workers to pick up the slack for everyone else?
Maybe Obama will reduce the deficit, but not with out taking more of your and my money, and just who’s going to benefit from that?
So, Mata, if you didn’t care about the economic facts why ask the question anyway? I am more than happy to get down to the real disagreement anyway – – – – but it seems you have drunk a bit too much of your own rhetorical Kool-Aid!
You seem to assume that I (or Obama and Democrats) want us to become a full-on Marxist republic, where it is, from what I gather from your statements, possible to just sit on your butt an collect a nice check. (That’s not even how it worked in the Soviet Union, though because everyone got the SAME salary, incentive was removed.)
You say that I am “in favor of a party and their candidate tearing down a particular class in the name of more income?” Increasing the top rate from 36 to 39% or whatever it is is hardly “tearing down a particular class” – it is just returning top tax rates to a point which are still basically at an historic LOW for the last century – under Eisenhower, top rates were in the 70% range.
At the same time, the extra 500 or 1000, or even 2000 that you and others will get, (if I assume you to be in the 20-50,000 income range), well, I am sure we will all become just downright lazy and stop working.
But you asked me another question – show you a socialist country that works –
Here goes:
What we see, Mata, is that when regulation goes out the door, we get situations like this. Imagine if baseball were played without rules. The wealthy will put their money wherever it will make them the most money, that is business and there is nothing wrong with that. Corporations responsibility is to make their shareholders the most money possible. Acting environmentally responsibly may actually be against their corporate charter. They rely on regulation to make an even playing field for all, like team salary caps in sports leagues.
Government is simply all of us, getting representatives together to establish rules that work to make our society run smoothly. Progressive taxation, like it or not, is part of what makes it work. Raising taxes on the wealthiest few percent, and then offering tax breaks for investments that make sense for larger population or special needs areas is one way of doing this. (This is the way it often works. Why are, for instance, municipal bonds tax free?)
First, Robert, you might want to have a recent look at the economy of your Socialist-Demo Euro examples. For some reason, you think the rest of the world… most especially those with a govt model you favor… are escaping this global economy.
Secondly, you cite small countries, a far cry short of our massive population. This is like pointing to a successful hippy commune with socialist policies for their community, and expecting it to work for the nation.
There is nothing wrong with the capitalist model. It does require a distinct balance between not enuf, and too much regulation…. a balance that has been tilted by idiots in Congress for decades. However economic woes are not cured by throwing your hands up, and putting it all in the hands of the government. And most especially the hands of one man in particular….
Speaking of, how about them tax cuts for banks Paulson quietly slipped past the eager beaver Congress while they were battling about the bailout? Funny thing is, after shoving this down an unwilling nation’s throats, they might start realizing they have just placed an inordinate amount of power in the government, and most especially into that of a single officer’s hands (Treas Secy… the job *I* want…. :0)
Also hilarious is they wonder if the Treasury had the authority to do this…. yet they did not cry foul when Clinton’s Treasury Secy rewrote the compliance regulations for the CRA – quietly, behind closed doors in order to escape any chance of these changes failing in a new, incoming GOP Congress. Where was the outrage then? By either party?
Guess it’s all how you look at it, Robert. But all I can say is this… Leaving out your claim that Obama is not Marxist/socialist – something time will tell – his cure for every ailment is government. He believes government creates jobs, not the private sector. And yes… it can. But it’s the socialist government that creates jobs by expanding control and departments. Like this federal animal isn’t overbloated enough?
Government solutions are a losing proposition … a guaranteed path to, if not abject failure, absolute mediocrity. The US will no longer dominate the global economy. Without our economy, our military will no longer remain superior. Both voids will be filled by another.
Perhaps you think mediocrity is more “equitable”. Yet it is those Socialist-Dem Euro nations who depend upon the US for security. And the world revolved around the great US marketplace… not your Euro socialist models.
We have ample history to show that when you want something done right, and with the most efficiency and profit, you don’t give it to government, but the free market. We have just as much history proving that those in government grow corrupt with power… and oh, BTW, aren’t too bright for long term vision…. and it seems those in the Treasury Dept and Congress are about to give you a late, but very important re’education.
Expect to fight me tooth and nail on moving this nation into any more socialism than we already have, Robert. I will not go there but by kicking screaming biting fighting every political step of the way.
@MataHarley:
Your implication is that I am not a supporter of the capitalist system – NOT true.
I am not saying we should be Denmark. I am stating that Democratic Socialism is not a prescription for disaster, as is hyped by the right. You may be right, that their systems would not work for us, but that is just a guess, on your part, based on – What?.
I think we can both agree, however, that what we have been doing economically just hasn’t been working.
In fact, we already have, in the words of the founders, fairly good support of the commons. I is over cutting on taxes on the top 1% who make 50% of the income that has created this mess, along with deregulation.
The two times in our history when your ‘free market model’ held sway in this country were the 1920’s and now – Reagan onwards. We all see the results. You still haven’t been able to name a successful system that works under the principles and rules, or lack thereof, that you support.
To say that high taxes decreases initiative is just plain not true.
From about 1951-the mid 60’s we had the highest GDP in our history, over 3%, and:
Taxes were 91% on income totals above 400,000 (2-3 million today’s dollars)
and …
Taxes were 75% on income between 100,000 (1 million today’s dollars) to 400,000
Is that coincidence? (Again, I am NOT suggesting that we go back to that, just making the point that raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans doesn’t ruin business – quite possibly just the opposite.)
What do you think people said when they were told that they had to pay for education of the children of others, and that it would be compulsory?
Should we get rid of social security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, clean water laws, food and drug safety laws, environmental laws, child labor laws? I would argue that, as a matter of record those moves have not had disastrous consequences. That you could philosophically oppose them is another matter entirely.
I do not think, as you imply that capitalist model is wrong, in fact I am a great supporter of that model – when it is properly regulated. The Scandinavian countries that I mentioned are all capitalist! They simply have a system where they expand what they consider infrastructure to include healthcare and college, and a number of other things.
I am not saying, as you state, (nor is Obama, if I may speak for him) that the private sector isn’t where our strength comes from, just that it needs to be well regulated.
Free markets do not solve problems- corporations fiduciary responsibility is to make money. The unregulated banking industries quickly devolved to what is nothing more than gambling and Ponzi schemes with their derivative and hedge fund trading.
The present fairly free market for insurance companies is a major reason our healthcare is low quality and high cost, compared to the rest of the more affluent world.
Putting aside the 30% of our premiums that, off the top goes towards advertising, profit, administration, lawyers, and – finding new and better ways to NOT pay our claims – do you really think the free market works in this case to your benefit?
(For the record, as a physician, I think that there are better ways than centralized Medicare style healthcare that Obama proposes to deal with the healthcare costs. I am in favor of Bush’s idea for Medical Savings Accounts that would cover most of the routine outpatient care that we presently have to beg insurance companies for, if we have that coverage at all. But, I would also favor funding that account for those who cannot afford it themselves.
After 2,000, to 5,000, the present system or a Medicare- like system would take over. )
The top 1% of individuals keeping so much of their disposable income does nothing to help the strength of our nation. Do you think our military is stronger when the wealthiest are paying lower taxes?
Raising taxes and investing in quality of life, for all building the infrastructure of commerce, appropriate regulation, transportation, education and health care ultimately helps business – the workers are happier, more productive, healthier, and that means more productivity. Higher wages engendered by regulation (minimum wages) and unions, particularly when we have sensible fair trade rules that don’t have workers competing for the lowest wages on the planet, THAT is good for business. This is borne out in Scandinavian countries.
The facts could not be clearer – if you have a philosophical disagreement with a more egalitarian system, that’s fine, but to if you want to say that you support the unregulated, free market, supply-side economic approaches because they work, then you are on thin ice – thin to the point that you are trying to walk on water.
Robert,
If you’ll notice, I said Euro-democratic socialism here, if not a “prescription for disaster”, as you say, is a prescription for mediocrity… as evidenced by the comparison from the US to Euro nations. Are they the most wealthy? The most powerful military? The ones with the consumer market coveted by the world?
There are no role models comparable to the US economic/free market structure. There are, however, ample models for all degrees of socialist to communism. And we do know their success rate… and the expansion of that “gap in wealth”.
Ah yes… the good ol’ days when we were an industrial giant… as opposed to today when we are a service and retail giant. Wages were low, OSHA and EPA demands virtually non-existent. Needless to say, the cost of doing business then, compared to today, is like night and day.
It’s nice you choose to speak for Obama, but that isn’t what drips from the lips, Robert. Government will create jobs, government will solve the problems… government, as you rightly point out in your second paragraph, *is* the problem (where have I heard that before….)
The problem with the words regulation and deregulation is that are merely a base line. i.e. it was regulation that demanded the removal of perceived redlining, creating the risky loans onslaught of demand. Prior to that, banks did not lend if they did not see the criteria need take that risk. Is that good regulation?
The “deregulation” many want to scream about is securitization… which as been working quite well to provide growth for local banks just fine since the 70s…. until, of course, they started selling bad product on the secondary markets. So what’s the real problem? The secondary market? Or selling bad product on the secondary market, caused by regulation?
That said, of course I think that capitalism is a balance of wise, but non-intrusive regulation that stimulates growth. Our problem is the plethora of bad regulations… or, as you might like to see it, the lack of regulating bad regulations. Confusing, eh? But basically true.
Not quite… trial lawyers, HMOs… many things affect our costs. You might want to wander over to the prescription drugs thread for more in depth conversations on this subject.
You miss the problem. Obama’s spending plans do not fit into the taxable income burdened by the wealthy, *and* the middle class. It is the classic “eyes bigger than the stomach” connundrum.
Creative phrasing, but no where did I suggest what you said I did. I’ll try repeating it… all by itself… it case you just glossed over it.
Got it now?
Well Mata, my brain is starting to hurt- we can go round forever, but we can certainly end on a note of agreement, sort of.
(On medicine, the whole Med/pharma medical paradigm, while appropriate and necessary for life and death issues, knows nothing of encouraging true health, that is the real cause of our poor system. HMO’s are just another form of insurance company part of the same dead medicine system, as will be socialized healthcare for routine medicine if it encourages the same system. The med/pharma system is morally sickening – ‘correctly’ prescribed drugs kill tens of thousands, they falsify or at least hide derogatory research and deserve to be sued out of business – and yes, there the lawyers come in and yes, that is part of the whole diseased system. But that is another soapbox.)
So –
“Mata #76: There is nothing wrong with the capitalist model. It does require a distinct balance between not enuf, and too much regulation…. a balance that has been tilted by idiots in Congress for decades.”
We will just draw the line in very different places. Time will tell what will happen. The pendulum has swung too far to one side, and new forces will now run the show. Who knows what they will do.
Both sides take too much corporate money, and are not beholdant to the people. Could we agree that maybe part of the answer is campaign finance and structural reform that allows things like instant runoff voting (you choose your first and second choice ie Ron Paul first and McCain second, and if Paul doesn’t end up with a majority, your vote goes to McCain)?
In truth too much might be beyond anyone’s control. Time will tell.
“Sort of” is a good starting point, Robert… and in this political climate, downright civil. And yes.. the pendulum has swung. In what direction is hard to say, given the history. The trick is to get it balanced again.
And yes, time will tell, and who knows what they will do. All any of us on either side of an issue can do is wait and see.
This is strange stuff, isn’t it. I look at what you say, and think, this is sooo obvious, how can you not see it, and you probably think the same of me – and we are both looking at the same general set of facts and observations, drawing diametrically opposed conclusions and we both know we are right!
Ain’t America great, Robert? LOL
ADDED: BTW, I really ought to archive that comment. It is pertinent to just about everything in the battles of our always divided country. And, ya know, I wouldn’t have it any other way…. divided, I mean. We keep each other’s “in’s” honest that way.
Why don’t we split a flag, you can fly your half, and I’ll burn my half 🙂
I hasten to say just kidding, in case anyone might take me seriously.
I would never give you half to fly.
Trust me, the humor you intended is not lost on me… but it won’t work. When my Old Glory gets damaged (i.e. torn in half), I take them to my local fire department so they can dispose of it properly. (happens a lot with my little flags I fly on my Harley…. that wind whips the tar out of ’em and tatters the edges)
So you see… if you got what you wished (in jest, I understand), I still get screwed because my half gets burned anyway. But at least with a proper ceremony… LOL
And there in lies a serious lesson of irony….
Robert;
I and many veterans like me fought for your right to protest. But you burn a flag improperly as a symbol of your hatred for our country in our presence and we’ll be going round and round. That is a deep dishonor to our country and an insult to the memory of the fine people who died to protect you. It’s not free speech, them’s fightin’ words. That’s why our military members earn the right to have our flag draped over our coffins when we are finally put to rest. You try the same thing in another country with their flag and you would be arrested and/or deported. You might not get such a rise in temper from me if you hung a politician in effigy, but to show disrespect to our flag is like a kick in the groin to America’s service members. I don’t care if you think you are being sarcastic or witty. It is not a laughing matter. What’s next, a joke about rape? If you’re so daring, why not find some black panthers and tell them some racist KKK jokes or go to a synagogue and joke about the holocaust? You have just earned my eternal disgust.
Well said Rocky, If dad were still here, I’d be reading your comment to him. Your discription of how a vet feels about Old Glory being abused reminded me of the anger and frustration he would go through everytime he would see a news item of our flag being burned. He certainly did not think of it as a joke, he didn’t dismiss the idiots as being foolish or unlearned. He viewed them with great discust. I was pretty strong through his funeral, until they handed me his flag. Am going to go cry now. No it isn’t funny.
Rocky – I apologize if I offended you.
For the record I have never burned a flag, and don’t intend to. I understand that many see the flag as representing everything that is great about our country and associate it with all who have fought and died and sacrificed in innumerable ways to have what we have here in our country. All that is very real and true.
When I think of the sacrifices of individual soldiers, sacrifices made in good faith and trust in what the flag stands for, I don’t know if I could make those sacrifices, and I am glad that neither I nor my son have been put in the position where that was needed. Those kinds of sacrifices are amazing, heroic and often tragic. That is the human side of the flag.
The flag stands for them, but also and originally for the constitution, and the incredible system of government that was created, new and from the creativity and vision of Washington, Jefferson and so many others; those too are associations that I get from the flag.
But, when you take what Bush and Chaney did, taking all of that incredible history and trust in the flag and what it stands for, and not only created from whole cloth (irony intended) the story that 9/11 was hatched in Iraq, and that Iraq has WMD’s, and beyond that sees fit to say that if you don’t go along with their view of what is going on, you are a traitor, and against the flag, that is worse, to me, than burning the flag.
When hundreds of thousands die as a result of that lie, traitorously I submit, wrapped in the flag, and thousands of American soldiers, with faith in that flag as their inspiration, die or are maimed for life to support those lies, that is worse than burning the flag.
I expect you will have a very different take on why we got into the war, and I do not wish to get into another unending argument, but does my view make me unpatriotic, as the Bush/Chaney rhetoric has often been implied? Or does it make me more patriotic. To me I am defending the flag against an insidious threat, far far worse than some angry individual that wants to burn it. Better to burn the flag than to blow up buildings with people in them.
If you look at it from the perspective of people on the other side the flag becomes a very different symbol. To some devout Muslims in Saudi Arabia, seeing US bases on in their country feels like a degradation of their sacred symbol, as much as you feel about the burning of the flag. If you were a devout Christian who came from generations of Americans who fought and died for their country, and a Muslim country was putting their bases in Florida, Texas and California, and flew a Muslim flag above the American flag, how would you feel?
If you lived in a South American or Middle Eastern country and saw your government continually influenced if not overthrown by people who represented another country how would the flag of that country make you feel? (In the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, we are just another in a very long line of nations that have invaded them.)
Too often we have supported dictators who would do our bidding, rather than take the high and hard road of putting our foreign policy at the same level of integrity as we would hope to hold ourselves to, such as upholding parts of the law like ‘innocent until proven guilty’ even when we know damn well that he is guilty. Those are the sacrifices we make to freedom.
Do we have good reasons? Sometimes, maybe. But all too often we are saying we want to bring democracy and by the way our oil companies will get the contracts. Democracy at gunpoint is not what we should be after.
I can only speak for myself, but I see the greatness of this country and its reputation as a liberator of the oppressed, earned from the blood and loss of our soldiers, if not the money of our nation given as aid to other countries, being squandered in highly questionable ways.
And, to return from my digression with a point, I understand those that may want to burn the flag, for those very reasons. To them and to those who feel pain and regret for them, it is a symbol of being oppressed, whether that is our intention or not.
To me that is the cost of free speech, that someone can trample on what we believe at the the center of our hearts, and walk away, because ultimately, like Washington treating the British POWs with respect or treating German POWs with respect after what they did to our prisoners, like those actions of sacrifice of our own personal passions in deference to the larger ideal, like following the Commandments when, damn, your neighbor’s wife sure is hot, those things eventually bring a respect of the ideals that you are trying to defend.
Peace, justice and democracy are best spread by being peaceful, just and democratic. Your allowing of others the freedom to do that which offends you terribly, and you abhor, but which at the end of the day truly hurts no one, makes you an exemplar of the values that you are willing to die for.
I don’t know about any of you, but it sure gets tiresome listing to the same ol, same ol BS that flies in the face of fact with the Pentagon Iraq Perspectives Report IV, plus the Harmony and ISG docs….
How many times do people need to be told the world is no longer flat before it sinks into their thick skulls??
Feh….
Then…
Boy, that really makes sense with your parroted media/DNC lies in the previous paragraph.
First of all, I don’t care how others feel about Old Glory… just what Americans do. I know you were joking. I also knew there would be many here that would not see the humor. As I said, I recognized the irony that if you burned your half, I’d be forced to burn mine… but with a respectful ceremony. That must have been lost on you.
And the last I looked, both the Afghans and Iraqis were quite pleased not be under the oppressive rule of the Taliban, or Saddam. They have set up their own governments… we didn’t. I have no idea what you’re talking about, but you clearly haven’t involved yourself in how these nations have been struggling to find that right balance of democracy that works for their denizens.
Robert said:
Just out of curiosity Robert, is that how you see the flag too?
And please point out to me where the Bush Administration said 9/11 originated in Iraq. Show me the quotes of Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld or Rice who blamed 9/11 on Saddam.
Either that or stop LYING, because that’s what you are doing.
Guys,
I don’t mean to keep you from ripping each other’s heads off, but I think this flag discussion (as important as it may be) is way off topic from the intent of this forum. Can we please get back on track?
@MataHarley:
Mata, you said
Gee, I thought, this contradicts everything that I had ever heard about the lack of connection between Saddam and Al Quaida. So, I looked it up.
Here is an ABC news piece on the Iraq Perspectives Report
Also there is this briefing on 9/21/2001
Was I glad when Saddam was taken down? Of course. Was he a despicable scoundrel? Sure! Was he a supporter of terrorists. Yup.
But that is not the point. The case was very specifically made and repeated over, and over and over for years that there was a connection between 9/11 attackers, Al Qaeda, and your own source says that is not true.
Robert, when you’re finished parroting news summaries, go read the report yourself. And don’t bother me with this until you’ve read it end to end.
After that, you may want to pick up Ray Robison’s book, Both in One Trench, which was published before the Pentagon report. Robison was one of those men in Iraq as part of the Iraq Survey Group, and saw these documents first hand. He is a plethora of data on the global jihad movement history and their world wide associates.
But if you’re coming back here with paragraphs and summaries from ABC or other journalist analyses on the documents… then you’d better discard your slingshot and pick up a M-16 before you head back out into the debate cyber roadway.
BTW, this is not linking Saddam to 911. It is linking Saddam to al Zawahiri since 1993, and other jihad groups that affilate with AQ. It also suggests Saddam’s hand in “Blackhawk Down” Somalia 1993… where Bin Laden trained the fighters who mutilated our soldiers. Coincidence that Saddam ordered assaults on the US in Somalia, that he knows and dealt with Zawahiri, and Bin Laden ends up training the Somalies?
But no… Saddam didn’t have any contact with jihad movements…. right.
Read the dang report. Have a little healthy curiousity, would you? If you are only just now “looking it up”, you are way overdue…
Michael;
I’m sorry we ventured off topic, yet when someone insults all patriotic and proud individuals who see our flag as symbolic of what makes America great, some of us see it as akin to throwing down a gauntlet. That is something our military and veterans will not stand for. That it was done on Veteran’s Day no less, added insult to injury like rubbing salt into a wound.
Missy;
Your tears honor your father’s memory. It is a mark of your pride in him for all his sacrifices for you throughout his life, and for each of us by his service. Bless you.
Robert;
I forgive the statement made and the unfathomable logic where you might in some way feel your apology is sincere, yet I will not forget. I note; you then tried to justify your remark by pointing to Bush/Cheney. This would likely be perceived by many here as disingenuous. I do understand the mindset somewhat as I do have some Lib Dem friends and we have frequently debated political positions on several occasions. Yet in our debates, we recognize there are some areas where one dares not tread, ere’ it incite the anger and angst of the other. For example; Blaming individuals in the military for the decisions of a president are out-of-bounds to me. And I never question their patriotism.
Besides our flag, another symbol that is “off-limits” is the Presidential Seal. Each item on that seal has profound symbolic meaning:
You will note that many were appalled when Obama chose to disgrace the seal by “remaking” it for himself. Had BHO bothered to check the U.S. code, he would have found disrespect to the Seal of the President of the United States, the Great Seal of the United States, and our flag does not fall under protected rights of free speech, as it is a felony under Section 18 USC (Refer to sections 700, 701, 713):
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00700.html
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00701.html
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00713.html
This is just one of many areas where Barrack lost respect in my eyes. And having a friend in William Ayers who willfully treads on our flag and following a preacher who states, “God damn America!” were further hits to his credibility and respect. I accept you hate Bush/Cheney. Yet the disdain party supporters feel against the others’ leaders is a different matter for another thread. My comment was on one singular remark. I respectfully request in the future, you just not go there.
All,
First, I am not impugning either soldiers or the military. Quite the opposite. They were and are doing their duty to the commander-in-chief, and their country. To nobly defend the country in this way, when needed and called upon is vital to a nation. There was a huge desire to avenge and defend against another 9/11 and many who wanted to do something. Their patriotic desire and willingness to lay down their lives was squandered in Iraq, by the skirting of the truth by Bush/Cheney et al.
Mata- your point is taken, Saddam was a bad guy, up to stuff that was no good and harmful to US interests. But you are arguing a different point than the one I was making, which is that there was deliberate and repeated deception by Bush et al, in the form of cherry-picking of intelligence, making statements that may, or may not have a particle of truth into “overwhelming evidence”, (below, and Colin Powell’s unfortunate and discredited revelation of ‘proof’ of WMD’s for examples.)
To be as charitable as I can, maybe we can call it an attempt to lead, us where they thought, out of the best of intentions for this country, we should be going, not to mislead? Whatever, the result was a false understanding in the minds of Americans, like 70% in 2005 who believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bush or at least Cheney and his staff would read raw intelligence data (which is often refuted or in later analysis) to find the evidence they needed.
The decision was made to go into Iraq and then the ‘reasons’ were found. It was Bush’s intention before he became president to invade Iraq if he ever got the chance.
Look at this from re: Paul O’Neil, treasury secretary who was in the meetings before 9/11:
CHENEY CLAIM: “There’s overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there.” – Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
You are right, Mata et al I was mistaken- he never did say that Saddam planned 9/11 – I guess I, like a majority of Americans (70% in 2005), heard in that and other statements like it, the unspoken association not explicitly stated that he hoped for us to hear – for that was surely the implication, as 9/11 was mentioned frequently in the same speeches and even sentences with Iraq.
But even these claims like Cheney’s are disputed by many facts.
I am speaking of a tragedy here- troops – honest, loyal, brave, trusting American men and women who were put out on a poorly conceived, poorly planned, poorly executed fool’s errand. I am glad that it is looking like something good can be salvaged from this at this point – but to me it doesn’t make it excusable.
A CIA mistake. Not a lie. He’s the one, btw, who overly stressed the wmd angle in his UN speech.
As far as “cherry-picking” intell, the bulk of the intell pointed to Saddam being a danger.
Excerpt from the Silberman-Robb Report:
Excerpt from the SSCI Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence:
Is there any official bipartisan investigation that has not exonerated the Administration from manipulating/cooking/cherry-picking the intell?
Read my post: Did President Bush link Saddam to 9/11?
Rest later. Have to get dressed for work.
I read a few pages from your link to The Fall of the House of Bush. Interesting stuff. Thanks for the link. I don’t think highly of Craig Unger’s credibility, however.
As far as the alarmism in O’Neill’s account to the partisan Suskind,
Here’s another point of view and account:
Chapter 3 in Feith’s book talks about the Camp David war strategy discussions. About how broad to engage in this war. Pg 48:
Besides this being addressed in my post, the link in mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same speech isn’t that Iraq attacked us; it’s that the Administration, in the attempt to prevent the next terror attack, was engaging a broader war against international terrorism; not narrowly focusing on a law enforcement approach of “revenge/retaliation” against Osama bin Laden and his merry men.
The war planners didn’t even see the need to directly link Iraq to the attacks of 9/11:
Scott:
And yet pre and post-war documents indicate that even if Saddam didn’t trust religious fanatics, he was not opposed to working with them to achieve common short term goals.
Note also how Baathists in post-war occupied Iraq worked hand-in-hand with Islamic holy warriors to foment violence and chaos.
Counter Fact (one of many…just too lazy to do a thorough job, here- again, go directly to Iraqi Perspectives Project):
Read the rest.
More accurate fact:
COUNTER FACT: Already cited Silberman-Robb Report and SSCI Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence; in addition, there were those within the CIA such as Pillar and Drumheller who behaved out of partisan politics over professionalism. What Policy Staffers such as Christina Shelton did, was raise questions regarding evidence ignored and unexamined by an incurious CIA that refused to look outside their own established box when it came to al-Qaeda/Iraq connections. (Re: Pg 264-273, War and Decision, by Douglas Feith)
Would be easier if you could establish a link to the full article.
Here’s a bone.
Here’s what else the article says:
Regarding camps: Read here. And here. Here.
The Iraqi Perspectives Project is the latest to date as far as I know.
I find this part of the article amusing in a sad way:
In the very same piece, at the top, the author mentions “cast doubt on theories that Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated.”
If anything, it’s the media itself that contributes to the distortions.
@Robert:
Is this just a perception, or reality? Who got the oil contracts? Who’s out there, at cost of American blood and treasure, to protect innocent Iraqis, train their military, build schools, hospitals, mosques, and repair infrastructure long neglected even before we arrived?
@Michael:
Michael I simply wondered in here by accident when I fished Robert’s last comment from the spam filter. I just now noticed the date on this post (feb 26th) and the topic. All I can say is “jimminy crickets, why is this thread even still riding on fumes, here?”
At this point, after almost 100 comments, I think it’s only natural for things to stray off-topic and on tangents; if it happened after the first few comments, I’d be more sympathetic to agreeing with you.
It can still return back on topic….although at this stage of the election, I don’t see why.
Wordsmith –
You have lived up to your name- maybe you should call yourself WordSmith&WessonSemiAutomatic- I will not have the time to go through your long post – no disrespect intended – I have spent way more time on this forum than I ever intended, and my attempts to move on have led to further conversation – I am working on a large work project, and I have put it off too many times.
I apologize therefore, if this seems to be preemptively dismissive of the points that you have put time and energy into. But, even were I to stipulate stronger evidence than I was aware of that Saddam was dangerous and capable of endangering not the fabric of our nation, but nonetheless American lives, through terrorist activity, Bush’s underlying reason for going into
Iraq, from its inception was political and oh yea, we can find some good reasons to take Saddam out.
As a political maneuver it was poorly, no, horribly, planned, and executed, highly misunderestimated at the very least, though with exception, some aspects of the last year, and the initial military strikes.
Waste and abuse abounded. Billions of dollars disappeared without a trace, private contractors were paid exorbitant fees and no bid contracts were given out for things that the military handled just fine in past wars.
As a result of going into Iraq, our eye was off the ball – actually going after Al Quaeda and Bin Laden. Or taking directly what Bush said in 2002-
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
My basic point, on getting into this particular phase of this part of the thread, was about the tragedy that we were fighting the wrong war, and fighting a preemptive war, which I believe was wrong to begin with, and which has proven to diminish our standing and respect in he world, and to be part of the economic difficulties we find ourselves in now, and how wrapping it in the flag is, to me a misuse of patriotism.
To say that maybe there was something more behind the evidence – as I believe is your point, does not solve my concerns, even taking your post at face value. The lead up to Iraq was not a conversation of the relative benefits, it was not a national conversation, it was a sales job at a post 9-11 time when it was largely considered unpatriotic to question it.
Some may be more comfortable with trusting that kind of central decision making concerning national defense, which after all, is based on analysis of secret information which we cannot know. I know I was not.