How are we to make sense of flash mobbing, the London rioting, more hatred expressed for the Tea Party, more calls for ever more debt and spending, and Barack Obama’s dive below 40% approval in the polls? Let me backtrack a bit.
Paleolithic Liberalism
I grew up with die-hard Roosevelt Democrats. Packers, shippers, and distributors made all the profits; farmers, we were told, did the work. Co-ops like Sun-Maid were noble; in contrast, grasping private packers paid on “consignment”: give us your produce in an oversupplied market and we will get what we can, when we can, for it. Often plums and peaches were dumped, and we paid the packing and storage fees for the privilege of losing the crop. Unfairness, not the capricious nature of market capitalism, is what we wished to hear.
In my youth, my mother helped out in the “Dollars For Democrats” campaign. I remember the 1960s’ talking points still, as she drove us through the poorer sections of the San Joaquin Valley raising money for JFK (Nixon would win the state by 36,000 votes). We had high hopes for Pat Brown and Sen. Claire Engle. Charles “Gus” Garrigus was our local assemblyman. At eight I met a young Alan Cranston at a run-down café on the old 99 Highway in Selma, a sort of awkward gangly guy still at that stage talking about hard-core, bread-and-butter populism.
After all, what was so unfair about wanting a 40-hour week, overtime pay, disability and unemployment insurance, public works and infrastructure (e.g., the California water projects, LAX, the state freeway system), fair housing, money for the new JC/CSU/UC tripartite “master plan” of higher California education? It was not uncommon in those days to see unpaved streets and a few outhouses — something I was told the distant wealthy could avoid but the state should not.
Most of my parents’ and grandparents’ friends, however, were Grange/Farm Bureau/Chamber of Commerce Republicans. I emphasize “friends” since in the early sixties, pre-Vietnam-protest age, politics still never impeded friendships. Most of my mom’s rural friends were amused rather than angered by her genuine liberalism, since it was directed at trying to improve the lot of the working poor, who were ubiquitous and often next door.
Remember, this was pre-Great Society stuff, well before globalized cheap material goods, the age of food stamps, two years of unemployment insurance, aid to dependent families, and the entire government umbilical cord. Most readers will shake their heads and now mutter: “Victor, Victor, did you not see even at seven that the obvious, the logical result of that idealized government help would be something like the annual $1.6 trillion debt and entitlement culture of the present? Did not Plato warn us that the egalitarian mandate has no logical end?”
Perhaps, but in those days it was not hard to think that the ‘”Okies” and “poor folks” and “Mexican-Americans” in the San Joaquin Valley needed some sort of foundational equality of opportunity — given the scarcity of capital and endemic prejudice. My most distinct memory of first grade was hygiene and dentistry problems: half the kids had rotten teeth and clothes that were unclean. (I remember Jimmy Hopson pulling out his front [permanent] tooth in second grade and showing it off.) Stern teachers from the southwest, with Texas and Oklahoma accents, lectured us on how to shampoo and comb our hair, change socks and underwear, brush our teeth, and use soap under our arms and on the backside of our arms. We were to “make something of ourselves” and be “presentable,” the sort of people “we ourselves would want to sit next to.” “Relief” carried the same stigma associated with “hypos” and “switchblades” or “bums” and “hobos.”
Word and Deed
I detour here, because late 1950s liberalism was in some sense conservative, given the rural poverty, the lack of high-tech appurtenances, the coming end of the U.S. postwar monopoly in manufactured goods, and the worry over “commies.” Of course, JFK, like FDR, personified noblesse oblige, but mostly the heroic Democrats were guys like Truman and Humphrey. For my dad, FDR had built the B-29s, Truman stopped the North Koreans, and JFK had stood down Castro — some mythic history in that, but not much.
You might think their square-deal politics were naïve, but they were salt-of-the-earth types, whose lifestyles reflected the politics that they advocated, and whose personal tastes were simple. To the best I can recall, there was no manifest contradiction in my grandfather’s voting for JFK in 1960, and his stern warnings about “lazy” “no-goods” who came out to prune for a week, abruptly to quit when they earned enough money for “booze” and “were up to no good.” The new pocket transistor radios, he swore, only encouraged sloth and poor work habits — and he wanted no one on the farm listening to one, us included.
In those days, liberalism, if we can even call it that, was clearly an equality of opportunity idea — whatever the intrinsic contradictions of the prior New Deal that logically led to the Great Society and the other failed “societies” to come. It was still not socialism of the European type, but singularly American and predicated on a “fair shake” as the majority of its adherents’ lives were not too distant from the objects of their worry.
I’ll skip the next half-century, since the tragedy is too well known, and focus instead on the vastly different, contemporary liberal mindset. To be blunt, what strikes us about its recent and most vocal emissaries — politicians such as a Barbara Boxer, John Edwards, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi; or the Hollywood celebrities; or the great fortuned like a Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or George Soros; or the credentialed technocrats who run the foundations and government agencies, or the high-paid media types in the NY-DC corridor — is how vast apart are the circumstances of their own lives from the objects of their concern. In addition, present-day liberalism finds its most numerous adherents among the upper-middle class suburbanites and those who work for government and enjoy de facto tenure (e.g., the public employee unions, teachers, the public professoriate, etc.).
By now, you’ve probably read Warren Buffet’s op-ed in the NYT:
Excerpt:
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
1) Nothing is stopping him from paying more taxes
2) He will likely take further advantage of loopholes to keep his taxes low
3) Yes I know what happened to help create those jobs and it WASN’T higher taxes. An ALLEGED financial genius like him should too…but he clearly doesn’t.
Just one word about that “nothing is stopping him from paying more taxes.”
It should be noted that it never takes any political courage at all to cut people’s taxes. It never takes any sacrifice at all to accept a tax cut. So conservatives have always had an advantage, when it comes to this line of political debate. Then, when things go bad (e.g. 8 years of anemic job creation following the massive Bush tax cuts; debt explosion following Reagan/Bush tax cuts), there’s always something else to blame; always someone else to blame. So the strategy is this: get popular by cutting taxes; then play the blame game when things don’t work out the way that Supply Side economic theory suggests it should.
I suppose the analogy would be this. Supporters of certain wars should be criticized if they, themselves, don’t enlist and go fight the enemy.
The point is this: everyone has the right to offer opinions concerning government policies. If people want to make symbolic personal sacrifices, that’s all well and good, but it’s not legitimate to criticize a given argument on the grounds that the person making the argument has not elected to make a symbolic personal sacrifice.
Read the last paragraph in the excerpt of Buffett’s op-ed, above. He’s immensely qualified to make that statement. Far more qualified than the economic theorists at the Heritage Institute, who assert, that, in theory, higher tax rates discourage investment. From long and vast experience, Buffett has learned that this is a false assertion. It goes to the very heart of this contentious debate on tax policy.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
To Mr. Buffet, and anyone else who feels that they are not contributing enough to the US gov’t…please be aware that the US Treasury accepts donations from those who feel so inclined. You can send them here:
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
@Aye: I’m disappointed that you didn’t credit the Forbes op-ed from which you lifted that quote. Tsk. Tsk.
Follow-up (12:00 GMT -7): Aye explains in #8 that he was simply quoting himself, from an earlier — Dec. 2010 — comment). I’ve apologized to him for the meritless implication of plagiarism.
Since last December it’s been established by the results of 23 separate and reputable polls that a strong majority of the American public support increased taxes as a means of reducing deficits.
Republicans are out of touch with mainstream opinion and out of touch with reality.
Hard RIGHT, why is he selling himself so cheap, and just feed
PRESIDENT who just want money to buy his much needed votes,is BUFFET SHOWING TIRENESS IN HIS COMMENT?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Did you just intimate that I stole the quotation? Why, yes…I believe that you did. For your information Mr. Smarty Britches I didn’t lift the quote from a Forbes op-ed.
You should be aware that I actually lifted that quote from a comment that I made back in December 2010 here at FA.
Tsk. Tsk. Indeed.
Any other questions?
@Greg:
And so are liberals who are pushing for acceptance of Obama’s tax increase ideas. As Mr. Buffet has noted, it’s not “income” being the reason his effective tax rate is so low. It’s the capital gains tax rate. Meanwhile, he is comparing his enormous “income” via stock trading, and the percentage of that that is taxed, to his company employee’s actual income, and the rate they are taxed at.
It isn’t about rich and non-rich, as he would have people assume. And Obama’s idea about increasing taxes on those making $250k or higher won’t affect what Buffet is comparing.
What’s more, increasing the capital gains tax rate is a bad idea, in that it will drive investors into other, safer, investments. With a low capital gains tax rate, the risk is offset by the reward, which includes the low tax rate. Increase that tax rate and the risk/reward ratio changes, which is what will drive investors away from the higher risk stocks. Not a good idea, especially if you are trying to get companies to spend capital on jobs and expansion.
@Greg:
On top of my previous comment, I will also mention, again, that the problem concerning the debt issue IS NOT one of revenue, but of OVERSPENDING. Liberals try to push the idea that we just aren’t being taxed enough, but the data shows that even with a return to Clinton-era tax rates, the deficits will still be enormous, and likely well over $1 Trillion a year. In my view, Democrats are just as out of touch with mainstream opinion and reality, if not more so.
@aye (#8): I looked it up. You are correct. I’m sorry. I’ll add a correction to the comment.
@johngalt, #9:
I don’t see any reason why average U.S. taxpayers should be expected to subsidize the risky behavior of high-stakes gamblers, who are often playing with other people’s money to begin with.
@johngalt:
You say:
This is conventional, Heritage Foundation economic theory.
Here’s what Buffett (arguably the world’s most experienced and most successful investor) says, from his actual, real world (non-theoretical) experience:
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, Mr. Buffet, like Obama, is pandering to the low economic intellect of the liberal/progressives. For example, he fails to relate the exact circumstances involving the high rate of job creation during the 80’s and 90’s. He also fails to mention the dotcom bust and the housing bubble bursting that hurt the economy and job creation, overall, during the 2000’s.
He is taking an effect, and arbitrarily relating a “cause” to it. In this case, lower tax rates. And he does this, as I stated above, by failing to relate the exact circumstances surrounding the economy.
Thomas Sowell definitely begs to differ regarding high tax rates and investment, and consistently uses historical facts in making his points. Try reading some of his pieces regarding high tax rates and the effects they have.
And, as I was explaining to Greg, Buffet misleads people by relating two entirely different taxation examples, as if they are the same, and then pointing out that “rich” people are getting a break. A better example would be his actual wages, and the taxation resulting from that, with his employees. That he doesn’t do so should be very telling concerning his viewpoints on taxation.
@ Larry
So, the liberals are the ones with courage. It takes courage to go out and tell people not to worry about working, the government will take care of you. When Nancy Pelosi told musicians and artists they could quit their jobs because Obamacare had been passed, that took courage. Where is the courage to tell people to quite being a parasite of society.
By the way, I believe Pat Buchanan has challenged Mr. Buffett to set an example for his friends and write a $5 billion check to the government. I’ll hold my breath.
@johngalt: The most important point made by Buffett is the relationship between tax rates and investments. Conservatives maintain that even the extremely slight increases under consideration would have a chilling, job killing effect on the economy. This is all based on theory.
If you can give me a link to a particular Thomas Sowell article, I’ll read it.
But Buffett has, as he relates, a 60 year history of investing and he’s probably made more money through “sheer” investing than anyone who ever lived. What he states is his experience is simply common sense. If an investor thinks he’ll make money, he’ll invest. Whether he pays 15% capital gains tax or 40% capital gains tax (read Buffett’s quote, above) doesn’t materially influence his decision. And no one is talking about returning to the 40% capital gains rate or the 70% marginal tax rates of the 70s.
The “dot com” bust created a very mild recession, from which the economy quickly recovered. Yet job creation was stagnant during the entire 8 years of the Bush Presidency, before the burst of the housing bubble. The tax cuts exploded the deficit but didn’t create jobs.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Curt,
Interesting read on how people back then used to be political opposites but still friends. I recall reading (it may have been the late Bob Novak who wrote it) an article about how the atmosphere in DC has changed. As recently as the ’80’s both sides would bang heads on the floors of Congress. In the halls of Congress they would always say hello to each other and after hours they could be seen eating and drinking together in the same bars and restaurants. The author said that today they won’t even acknowledge each others existence in the halls of Congress. Times have certainly changed. We have some very bad blood in this country.
Liberalism like conservatism is a set of beliefs that some individuals for what ever reasons make the choice to believe in. And like your article points out liberalism has undergone dramatic changes especially in the last 40 odd years. At one time I was liberal and did not even know it. Or at least I thought so. I have since met many people like myself who have over the course of the years have changed, and or adjusted their political beliefs to fit in with reality. But there lies the major problem of modern liberalism. Its major beliefs are dysfunctional and cannot stand the ultimate test, which is will liberal beliefs work effectively in bringing about positive and healthy changes in the real world. The major beliefs of liberalism have been massive failures where ever they have been implemented, and have only worsened and aggravated in problems in nations that have succumbed to New Age Liberalism. Real liberalism cannot exist outside of the Ivory Tower. It major principles, and tenets have and, will continue to clash with reality. It’s not about will liberalism work anymore, cause it never has and never will. High taxes verses low taxes is now irrevelent to the argument. Now its simply a battle between which of the two major belief systems will control the ultimate direction of our nation. The elite and so called intellects of liberalism know very well the high stakes that are at play in the comming years in our nations future elections. unfortuantely the conservatives are only starting to mobilize against this threat that has already entrenched itself in every cranny and crook in our society. Many americans are still walking around totally unaware that their future is now hanging on to the results of the current battle between liberalism and conservatism. That battle will not end with this election with a republican either, especially if its a rhino who still follows the compromise and retreat battle plan. An old liberal/communist strategy was/is: “They (the citizens) must not know of the changes that we begin in their society, these changes(beliefs) will spread to their institutions, once we have a foothold in their government. Then we will begin the changes to the family unit, their schools, their religions, etc…while consolidating our power at the local, province, and government. We must always deny any charges that we are making these changes, and make our accusers look the fool. That all the changes are for the good of the people. And before the common people know what has happened, we will have the power. Remember! Deflect, disguise, and confuse the people” Either way the battle will only intensify in the comming days, months and years. The real question is, Will enough Americans come to their senses and wake up to meet this new menace. Or continue to be confused and divided along party lines.
Larry sure likes to cite so-called experts to keep others from disagreeing with him. Too bad they are often found to be wrong by reality.
Larry, if I want to invest I may listen to Buffet’s advice. As for what makes the economy tick, I will not as he doesn’t seem to know jack…much like you.
It’s clear you and greg desperately want to believe taxing the rich/wealth redistribution is a good idea, but unfortunately for you, greg, and Buffet, facts show otherwise. Several people here including myself have proven you wrong time after time and have noted your historical and economic revisionism and even outright dishonesty in arguing your claims. Recent examples are the “flat job creation” and how “tax cuts” exploded the deficit. Could you possibly be more of a partsian liar?
You can say the same thing over and over all you want, it doesn’t make it true. It’s time you learned that.
@Aqua: What Pelosi said has nothing to do with the (valid) points I made. It takes no political courage to cut taxes and it takes no sacrifices for one’s country to take a tax cut. And vice versa.
With respect to Pelosi and so-called parasitism, you and Breitbart and other conservative pundits don’t understand her point:
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/65950
Now, her example (“musician or whatever”) was unfortunate, but it was an extemporaneous statement. She was speaking about entrepreneurs in general. When I was 45 years old, I cashed in my IRAs, kid’s college funds, etc. and took out 2nd mortgages on my home and investment property and started a new business from scratch. 19 years later, I’m spending vast sums of money — all my available capital — on expenses for international patents on inventions produced by this business. I was able to do this because of the existence of Social Security and Medicare, which met the needs of both of my aging parents and because, worst case scenario it all crashes and burns, I won’t starve to death when I get old and am unable to work, and I’ll have medical care.
I could have played it safe; kept my job working for someone else, and put all my available money into conventional, conservative investments. But it was the very existence of these so-called socialistic programs that made it possible for me to swing for the fences. If you Google me in 10 years, I’m hoping that you’ll see that what I achieved was of benefit to the national economy.
Pelosi was making a legitimate point, which has been distorted by her critics. It’s a point entirely worthy of consideration and discussion, as opposed to derisive dismissal.
There is so much economic distortion which takes place in this country, on account of health care. People take jobs not because the job is the best fit for them or their dream job, but, rather because it provides good health insurance benefits. People stay in jobs they hate, because they can’t afford the risk of losing their insurance. All of this makes the economy less efficient. It would be a great economic advantage to remove health insurance considerations from employment decisions.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Hard Right:
Job creation was flat following the Bush tax cuts; job creation was anemic, especially adjusted for population growth and economic growth attributable to population growth. The Bush tax cuts did explode the deficit. Just like the Reagan tax cuts exploded the deficit. There are two ways to explode the deficit: spend more and tax less. That’s why fixing the deficit problem requires both spending less and taxing more.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
That is an intellectually dishonest statement, Larry. Consider this;
-Following the 2003 tax cuts, there was a 52-month continuous period of job creation, until the end of 2007.
-During that period, the number of employed rose by 8.3 million.
Sorry, but that statement doesn’t make sense when you take into account the levels of risk concerning investments. Investors invest in stocks based on the risk/reward scenarios of each, and an increase in taxation on the gains from an investment are a decrease in the reward for that investment. When weighed out, many investments that investors make today would not be made if the reward were to be lowered. I did not say that investors won’t invest their money at higher tax rates, Larry. But the type of investments will change, and many companies who might have a chance at the lower tax rates will not even be looked at if those rates were to change. This is another mislead that Buffet doesn’t expound on, probably because it changes his claims.
Most experts suggest the effects felt from the bust trailed into 9/11, which made the “recession” worse. What’s more, the effect on government revenue at the time was significant and lasted for approximately 3 years, and before the big tax cuts of 2003. It wasn’t until after the tax cuts of 2003 that government revenues started climbing again, Larry. So no, I’d say that the economy didn’t recover quickly.
How about several?
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell072911.php3
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/tax-101800-mellon-facts.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/thomas-sowell-tax-cut-rhetoric-doesnt-cut-it
http://www.limaohio.com/articles/tax-69273-rates-party.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/08/09/random_thoughts
I can gather more if needed.
Parting question: Why is Obama and the rest of the Democrats using the terms “millionaires” and “billionaires” to describe who they want to raise taxes on, when their actual plan is to raise taxes on those making $250k(family) and up?
AYE, I’m glad to know now, they [forbes] visit our post and comments,
to pick up the one they like to fit in their news.
bye
Ummm no larry, tax cuts did not explode the deficit. Overspending did. Pretty basic. You don’t get it because you want to justify your support of an all powerful govt.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Actually, Larry, following the Bush tax cuts of 2003, the deficits rose in 2004, followed by decreasing deficits until the end of 2007, where the deficit rose again in 2008, mainly due to TARP money.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Let me know when liberals will actually decide to spend less, Larry. And NO, a decrease in the rate of spending increase doesn’t count.
@Hard Right:
Yes, the chart from the site linked below pretty much agrees with us, that spending is what increased the deficit, not to mention the reduced federal revenues from 2000-2003(prior to the Bush tax cuts of 2003).
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
One more for you, Larry. When liberal/progressive Democrats insist on “compromise”, they are being intellectually dishonest to the public considering the automatic spending increases due to the government’s budgeting system of baseline budgeting.
For example, at the start of the debt ceiling discussion, the accepted increase in spending over the next ten years was roughly $9.5 Trillion. That was the starting point of the negotiations. The argument wasn’t on spending cuts, but rather, a reduction in the amount of spending increase. Where was the compromise?
A true compromise would have started with an assumed constant spending amount equal to the amount that will be spent this year, of $3.8 Trillion. At that point, the Democrats and the Republicans could have compromised on spending increases and tax hikes. As it is, there was no compromise, nor will there ever be one, until the government gets rid of ‘baseline budgeting’. So, please don’t talk as if the Democrats gave up something while the Republicans didn’t in the “deal”. The only losers are the American public, and that includes both you and me.
@john: Thanks for your outstanding comments, which I hope I can address, later on today or whenever. Particularly thanks for the link to the very informative chart.
Just a brief comment on exactly what qualifies as a spending cut. Government spending always grows as a function of population growth and inflation. This has been true for the entire history of the nation and probably for all the western democratic nations of the world. So reducing the rate of spending growth can legitimately qualify as a spending cut.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Sorry, Larry, but that is a copout. I say this because the liberal/progressive rhetoric on spending “cuts” always claim to reduce the amount of money for programs when that isn’t the case at all. Government spending also increases at a much higher rate than inflation, including the spending increase rate reduction after the “deal”.
As I said, a true compromise would have looked at the budget as a constant dollar amount from the current spending year, and then negotiated upward in spending. At that point, the other side of the coin would be discussing revenue increases, be they from tax hikes, closing of “loopholes”, or a combination.
@John: The annual rise in gov’t spending has as much or more to do with population increase as it has to do with inflation. The main driver of GDP increase is population growth. That great chart you linked shows that the ratio of spending per GDP has been remarkably constant, for decades. Yes, there was a bit of a spike the last couple of years, along with a marked decline in revenue:GDP, but the spending spike was as necessary to avoid the Great Depression, v.2.0 as was the huge spending spike in WWII necessary to avoid military defeat.
The point is, it’s totally unrealistic to hold the absolute dollar amount of spending constant, in the presence of population growth and inflation.
By the way, I am in favor of massive spending cuts. Raise the retirement age to 70.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fix-social-security-by-hiking-retirement-age-2010-07-02
Pay health care providers for outcomes, rather than for procedures. Massively cut the military budget, as advocated by Ron Paul. But I’d also raise taxes. Do all that, and the fanciful threat of the USA turning into Greece is eliminated.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@ Larry
You say conservatives show no political courage because they promote tax breaks making liberals the de facto party of political courage. And my comments are derisive? How you read a mocking tone in my post, I can only imagine. Pelosi’s comments along with her history are what cause people to take notice.
You say it takes no political courage to offer tax cuts, I say it takes no political courage to extend SCHIP well into middle class incomes. I say it takes no political courage to extend unemployment benefits for two years. It takes no political courage to continue the cycle of dependency on the State.
I tell you now, there is no anger or derision in my tone as I write this. I’m an engineer, I have no emotions, just ask anyone that works for me.
@Aqua: I wasn’t arguing that Dems have more political courage than Republicans. I was confining my comment to a single (but very important) issue, and what I said was true. Republicans have a huge advantage over the Democrats on the issue of taxes, because everyone wants to pay lower taxes. The problem is this: there are times when it takes higher taxes and not lower taxes. My biggest criticism of President Bush with regard to the Iraq War is that he cut taxes, rather than asking Americans to pay more taxes to pay for the war, as, for example, Lyndon Johnson did for the Vietnam War. When people actually have to pay more for something which the government does, they are more likely to pay attention. If a war isn’t worth paying for, it’s arguably not worth fighting.
With regard to my referral of derisive comments against Pelosi’s statement on the Health Care law promoting entrepreneurialism, I was referring to the way that conservative bloggers seized upon this comment as a gotcha, as opposed to considering seriously what she was actually intending to convey; I gave the specific example of Breitbart. I’m sorry that I lumped you in with the general conservative blogosphere, with regard to the Pelosi quote.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim.
you definitly don’t cut massively the MILITARY BUDGET,
IT HAS BEEN CUT already enough with the MILTARYS WHO DIED IN THESE WAR,
AND NOBODY IS TO FORGET IT,
THE ONE WHO ARE STILL FIGHTING TO SAVE AMERICANS’S ASSES
DESERVE THE TOP WAGES, AND TOP RETIRMENT WAGES, BECAUSE THEY F…EN EARNED IT,
MORE THAN ANYONE IN THIS COUNTY, NO ARGUMENT IS NEEDED TO SEE THAT,
LET THE DEMOCRAT CUT THE 400 BILLION ELSE WHERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
MEDIOCER WORKERS SERVING AS HIS PRIVATE ARMY. THEY ARE NOT WORTH THE FIRST INCH OF MILITARY MIGHT AND COURAGE, THEY MUST GO FIRST BEFORE ANYONE ELSE,
@bees: We have 737 military bases in 63 countries.
I wouldn’t cut the pay or benefits to soldiers. I’d close bases. Lots of them. And not get into any more wars of choice. The rest of the world has been getting a free ride on our backs for too long. I am in favor of Fortress America, as opposed to World Cop.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I like the idea underlying you comment, Larry.
People, in general, don’t appreciate anything they get for free.
Look at the UK and how large a proportion of the looters had been living ”on the dole” for many years.
In the USA almost 50% of Americans pay no federal income taxes.
They should.
They all should.
It would give them all a bit of appreciation about what we are spending tax dollars on.
I know there are a few REALLY impoverished people in this country, and they could be asked to only give a pittance.
Remember your Bible?
There were many rich men and there was an old and poor widow both in the Temple when Jesus was there.
All of them were giving gifts to the treasury chest.
But that woman, that widow, gave only two small coins of low value.
Yet Jesus said about her, ”This widow, though poor, dropped in more than they all did. She gave out of her want, they gave out of their surplus.” Set out twice by two witnesses: Mark 12:41-44 & Luke 21:1-4.
If we want to see a new found widespread appreciation for what gov’t is really for and what is waste we should allow everyone to pay a bit of federal income tax.
openid.aol.com/runnswim.
yes to that, and you said 63, and now it went up to 75,
and that is the OBAMA’sWARS, under his command, not the MILITARY,
OR THE PENTAGONE, BUT ON OBAMA AND HIS BUDDIES THE UN ORGANISATION IN CHARGE OF NATO,
THEY ARE THE ONE TO BE DEPORTED TO THE POOR COUNTRIES THEY CLAIM TO PROTECT,
GET THEM OUT OF THERE . LET THEM RELOCATE ELSEWHERE AND PAY THEIR OWN RENT TO HELP THE POOR IN THAT NEW COUNTRY.
AND LET AMERICA TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN PROBLEM THEMSELVES
IN AMERICA
Nan G, they need to feel it as well as the rest of the people sweathing to earn their dollars which has shrunk in values non recuperated by them,and when they get to go shoping, they realise it very fast, even the groceries are double and triple in price, they don’t have food stamp to cover it.
so, which one is the poor in there
yes to all the welfare recipients to learn how to make their tax income report that is a way to teach responsibility and reminder that they are part of it to share the burden of those who pay
for them.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Not really, Larry. I believe that with the right people in charge of the various dept’s and agencies in the EB, that a constant budget amount will force them to cut out waste and streamline the services they do provide. Again, that would be with the right people in charge, and neither party’s establishment core fits that bill at this point in time.
What you are suggesting is that the spending for each dept and agency should continue to increase, even when the services some provide are duplicate in nature, or some programs provided do nothing of what they are claimed to do. It’s almost as if you are suggesting that the dept’s and agencies are running at peak efficiency, so that any true cut, or hold, on funding amount for them would only affect the level of services they provide. I know you cannot be that naive, Larry.
John, larry isn’t that naive. He is that dishonest. He quoted Buffett as a someone we should listen to (since he makes the same political noises as larry).
However, larry deliberately ignored a number of things. There is NOTHING stopping Buffett from cutting a big check to the governemnt which he seems to think is the answer to our problems. Yet he doesn’t. In fact, he continues to employ armies of accountants that make sure he pays as little in taxes as possible. Still he persists in wanting OTHER people to have their taxes increased-including those that don’t have packs of accountants working for them or aren’t even worth millions. $250K a year is rich? Not bad off, but not rich.
Next Buffett acted as if tax increases were the only factor in the years he mentioned. If he truly believes that then he is nothing more than a figurehead who is successful due to those around him and not by his own actions. Either that or he is dishonest and pushing a lie that benefits his political buddy obama. Speaking of which, he’s made quite a bit of money thanks to his relationship with obama. Larry purposely ignores that too.
So with all of the above the only conclusion I can come to is that larry IS dishonest and not naive.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
That and also this:
The entire piece is spot on.
And also read: The War on Wealth isn’t Just Stupid, it’s Wrong:
@Wordsmith:
What is truly interesting is that the rhetoric of the liberal/progressives has shifted to “millionaires” and “billionaires” from the term “wealthy” when they discuss increasing taxes. They are, however, being completely dishonest about their statements when the desire is to increase taxes on those making over $250k (family). I couldn’t vote willingly for a dishonest person. Could you?
WARREN BUFFET will give money to OBAMA for his campaign,
maybe he should give money instead to the GOVERNMENT to help on OBAMA’s debt,
HE AND ALL THE COMPANIES SHOULD KNOW THAT OBAMA has enough money for his campaign,
that is lose to billion,
which himself could put it on his own government debt also.
we know the money given for his campaign wont go there for the debt.
@john: This is a great thread, with a lot of great comments. I’m going to be getting back to address the various issues that people have raised — among other things, I’m constructing my own graphs from the data in the table you linked.
I do want to take the time, now, to address a single issue:
You’ve repeatedly made this charge. It’s a false charge. Obama ran for President on a platform to raise taxes on those making over $250K. This position is unchanged. It’s precisely because of this campaign promise that he’s (unfortunately) constrained from adopting the position that all the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to sunset (which I believe is what should be done).
The average net worth of a person/family making $250K per year is more than $1.1 million.
http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/networth_ageincome/
Obama’s position on tax increases is not ideal (my opinion), but it is entirely consistent with his campaign platform and his description of raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” is an accurate shorthand for those on whom Obama asserts the taxes should be increased.
To put things in perspective, also, this is not some sort of soak the rich/demonize the rich policy. In the 1970s, we had a marginal tax rate of 70% and a capital gains tax rate of 40%. What Obama proposed was raising the marginal rate from 35% to 39%, back to where it was in the Clinton 90s.
@Wordsmith: The author of the anti-Buffett op-ed doesn’t provide any data to counter Buffett’s assertion that tax rates have little impact on whether or not investors make certain investments. He simply tries to discredit and even demonize Buffett by making the utterly ridiculous charge that the “super rich” fear competition from the merely rich and selfishly want to keep the merely rich from making more money. It’s an absurd and borderline libelous charge. In fact, the authors of both of your cited op-eds are merely arguing in hyper-exaggerated slogans.
We are talking about simply rescinding some ill-advised tax cuts to people who can afford to pay a little more tax, in the name of getting the debt accumulation under control. This is not about demonizing anyone or preventing anyone from succeeding or anything of the sort. It’s just bringing back tax rates to where they were in the 90s, when a whole lot of people got very rich and where investors were not frightened away from investing in anything which they thought would make them money.
Some of you guys rant about the climate scaremongering, chicken little sky is falling sort of stuff. But you are taking a very modest proposal (return to the tax rates of the 90s) and are trying to make it into some sort of economic end of days for those who are striving to achieve financial success. It’s an exaggeration, to put it mildly.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
how about starting raising tax on their own in the WHITE HOUSE,
you have there a concentration of rich elected DEMOCRATS, AND
some are super rich in billions that could give to this AMERICA
that is showing what you preach, to the richs outside of the WHITE HOUSE,
what they would collect would diminish the DEBT TREMENDOUSLY,
that’s the way you do in leadership position to help you’re COUNTRY, you want to tax you’re own rich in there first.
@ Larry, #32
Apology accepted. As for the arguement over political courage, you are tying my hands. By claiming that I can only argue the political point as it relates to tax cuts, the debate is in your favor. The debate should be about political courage.
@ Larry, #43
But we can’t even discuss spending cuts. As soon as we do we are attacking the poor. People that use EBT cards to buy stuff that a lot of tax payers have to cut down on. Cell phone taxes that provide free phones on the backs of those that pay our bills. Now the Internet tax is coming to provide basic Internet to “low income people” on the backs of those that pay for Internet.
I also see where you want to close military bases. I’m actually a proponent. There are cold war era bases that need to be shut down. There are bases here in the US that could be shut down. But how about some government agencies? Surely we can come up with one or two government agencies that can be eliminated. If I had my way, there would be many; but even liberals should be able to name one or two. And if you don’t say CIA, I won’t say DOL. 🙂
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
No, Larry, it’s not a false charge. At worst, I’m guilty of parsing words, but that is, of course, my point. Obama and the Democrats have changed the terms they use in their rhetoric, so that the less educated masses of voters are more likely to be convinced that the GOP is refusing tax increases for the very high income earners, rather than the truth, which is that Obama wishes to increase taxes for those making $250k a year or more, many of which are nowhere near worth a million.
Funny to hear talk about ”demonizing” someone.
When the discussion turns to paying their ”fair” share, Obama always supplies the straw man that Republicans don’t want the billionaires and millionaires to ”pay anything.”
That is true demonization.
Obama knows the rich pay the most of all taxpayers right now.
He knows he is the one doing the demonizing.
Even Warren Buffett only wants to raise taxes on REAL millionaires.
Obama wants to raise the top two tax rates on individuals making more than $200,000.
And why would Obama want to raise taxes on the not-really-so-rich?
BECAUSE…..
If one assumes nothing else changes about the current tax structure and lawmakers added a new 50% tax rate to taxable income over $1 million, that would raise an additional $340 billion over 10 years.
Not enough!
So, Obama raises to 50% the tax on all the people whose total income is only $200,000/year or $250,000 couples.
Then he gets an additional $107 billion over 10 years.
Better.
Still not enough though.
In fact it is less than 5% of the new debt the country is on track to accrue over the next decade.
Now, who do you think is next?
And, that’s IF people take all those changes without modifying their behavior!
When tax structures change, people adjust.