In the market for a new home? Don’t miss the Open House guide in the paper Saturday and Sunday.
Shot by Dan in Squires Student Center at Virginia Tech
“I am conservative with a small ‘c.’ It’s possible to be conservative in fiscal policy, and tolerant on moral issues or questions of freedom of expression.”
Mick Jagger
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
72 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
I agree with Mick. Whatever people want to do under the sheets is ok with me. Republicans are killing themselves by emphasizing social issues.
They need to hammer away at the horror of government dependency. It atrophies the spirit and the soul. Look at Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain to see where the promise of endless bovernment benefits brings you. Don’t think it can’t happen here.
I happen to agree with Mick.
However, for one to be truly tolerant, tolerance must be shown to all sides of a moral issue.
For example, gay marriage (which I support), I am also tolerant of those who see it as a sin. It’s their right to believe as they do and I don’t belittle them for their beliefs.
Careful terps. They will cancel your membership in the eye dee ten tee club.
How precisely is “hammer away at the horror of government dependency” not a “social issue”? Maybe the “hammer” should be better paying jobs and benefits such that more people are not “dependent”. Despite what you all claim, it is not a choice most people would make willingly. There is in truth, only a small number of “leeches” who never earned their dole, and no one is keen on supporting them.
It is absolutely anyone’s right to believe anything they like. That is not the same as allowing them to dictate the inequality in our laws or customs because of that belief.
I am puzzled by the disgruntled republicans who claim they want economic issues in their parties political forefront, not the social agenda being fostered upon all …the party that wants to deregulate most safety nets and environmental protections, while spending the past four + years trying to regulate vaginas.
—
The 112th Congress had introduced 67 abortion bills. Fifty-four of them were introduced by Republicans.
A sampling: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/abortion/5897 This number does not even include the “personhood” amendments brought to the House floor.
—
It has been the republican voters who have provided the political field with theocrats, pseudo-libertarians, neo-cons, plutocrats, corporatists, and most recently lunatics.
—
Why the complaints? You all have continued to vote for the republicans and their “platform” year after year. You now reap what you have sown. Sadly, however, those of us who recognized the toxicity of the republican “agenda”, and voted accordingly, also have to endure the ramifications.
Wow. Our Socialist Muslim President just sucks at destroying our capitalist way of life. Dow just hit a new all-time high. Happened on his watch and now he owns it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/dow-hits-record-high-markets-undaunted-by-washington-budget-gridlock/2013/03/05/b6621c70-81e0-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html?hpid=z1
Now all I have to do is sit back and wait for the exasperated cries of the tea party and republican fools shouting “You didn’t build that!”
Dan, it’s been a year since you appointed yourself to be the chronicler of Rush Limbaugh’s decline. He’s still going strong and Sandra Fluke disappeared. What kind of timeframe were you going by?
Contrary to popular myth, it is not us conservatives who are hyper-focused on social issues, it’s the looney left. We’ve been minding our business for the past 5 – 6 thousand years when out of the blue, we’re called haters, bigots and homophobes for having the audacity to believe the definition of marriage is what it has been for the entirety of western civilization. We don’t have a problem with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, but when it is rubbed in your face every day on almost every tv station and in almost every movie, it gets tiring quick.
We also don’t appreciate funding your pet projects like baby killing and free birth control for folks who can’t seem to control their lady (and man) parts. Just sayin’…..
Sounds good, let people be free to live their lives and only be restrained by being responsible for their own actions both financially and socially.
Paddy O’Ryan I hope you don’t mind that I’ve greatly improved your little rant on social issues. The additions are in bold
“Contrary to popular myth, it is not us conservatives who are hyper-focused on social issues, it’s the looney left. We’ve been minding our business for the past 5 – 6 thousand years.
-
Sure, we were against women having the right to vote — they should be barefoot, pregnant, subservient.
-
And yeah, we wanted everyone to mind their own business when it came regulations that would force us to give up our slaves. We paid good money for them!
-
Then, after nasty liberal forced us to give up slavery — at gunpoint, I might add — we hired children for our factories. We were PAYING those kids. But was that good enough for the loony left socialists? Nooooooooooooooo! They passed laws against child labor. We fought the good fight against those all the way to the Supreme Court, but we lost.
-
You might have thought the libbiecoms would have given up by then. Fat chance!
-
They next turned to segregation. Hey! We gave up on slavery. What do they want?
-
After all, certain races BELONG at the back of the bus, and NOT at our lunch counters, or water fountains or in our bathrooms.
-
My God, they even came out for race-mixing in public schools. And they brought out the guns again.
-
Next, they invalidated our laws against race-mixing in marriage. Hey! We were minding our own business! We didn’t care if blacks and whites were sleeping together — especially in the context of the slave-master relationship. (We did care when it came to the Lovings, though). Even if it is immoral, and we had enacted laws against it.
-
And NOW they are pushing for changes in laws that allow gays to marry. They never stop!
-
Out of the blue, we’re called haters, bigots and homophobes for having the audacity to believe the definition of marriage is what it has been for the entirety of western civilization. We don’t have a problem with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, but when it is rubbed in your face every day on almost every tv station and in almost every movie, it gets tiring quick.
-
We also don’t appreciate funding your pet projects like baby killing and free birth control for folks who can’t seem to control their lady (and man) parts. Just sayin’…..”
terps,
I assume when you say dependency, you would also advocate to disabuse large corporations of their dependency on government as well. Right?
Paddy O’Ryan, you do not do the Irish proud. Nothing about the labels the right wing has earned was “out of the blue”. Quite the contrary, it is documented fact and well deserved.
Ah david, the news is that FOX and Limbaugh are “suffering” not soaring.
–
http://www.examiner.com/article/rush-limbaugh-and-fox-news-suffer-ratings-headache
Dan,
Why is it that history gets buried when it doesn’t help the Democratic Party?
The Republican Party opposed slavery and eventually abolished it. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain AND expand slavery.
Lincoln was a Republican but had a Democrat VP in Andrew Johnson who after Lincoln was assassinated, fought Repulican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves. Southern Democrats fought this for years.
The KKK was originally an arm of the Democratic Party.
Race issues are on the hands of the Democratic Party but they have done a good job flipping this issue and taking credit for supporting minorities by buying votes with government handouts.
Don’t forget ” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
People allow a mindset to keep them from the pursuit of happiness and always look to blame someone else…
“We don’t have a problem with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, but when it is rubbed in your face every day on almost every tv station and in almost every movie, it gets tiring quick.”
-
Weird…I feel exactly the same way about the “Christians”.
-
And david…how did Sandra Fluke “disappear”? Presumeably she’s an attorney precisely as she going to be. She wasn’t bucking for a RW Nutball Radio Gasbag position.
-
Sandy’s right…people have the right to believe as they wish. They do not have the right to incorporate their own petty bigotries and ignorance into codified law. And I’ll absolutely have an opinion about people who run around throwing the S word at perfectly decent people, and think a whole lot less of them. Which is MY right.
Hal Mabe,
What you wrote seems correct, with one huge asterisk. Where did I mention ANY political party in my post? What I was writing about was the difference in political philosophies, conservatism vs. progressivism.
As you’ve noted, the progressives are almost always on the side of “right,” and the conservatives always side with the “wrong.” The fact that each identify with a different party label than they used to is meaningless in terms of the discussion.
Paddy O’ Ryan | March 5, 2013 at 11:40 am
“…not us conservatives who are hyper-focused on social issues.” — …then you proceed to tell tell us your beliefs on a social issue…
-
…we’re called haters, bigots and homophobes for having the audacity to believe the definition of marriage is what it has been for the entirety of western civilization. — False. You’re often undeservedly called haters, bigots and homophobes for having the audacity to think you have the power to even define marriage. Marriage is not an institution or an arbitrarily defined concept. It is a binding of souls to one another – a melding of devotion, love and common goals into one. It is a combination of two (or more) dynamic forces. That kind of alchemy knows no gender, race or creed. You’re called names because you try to legislate love.
-
We don’t have a problem with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes… …free birth control for folks who can’t seem to control their lady (and man) parts.”
-
So… you don’t care what they do as long as it under your rules and conditions? I’ve made this offer once before and I’ll extend it to you: If you can source reliable numbers of what the government is spending on providing birth control to the American people and report them here, I will divide that dollar amount by 300,000,000 and gladly refund you your share of this deplorable burden to your oppressed lifestyle.
-
If I have to double my birth control tax burden to help prevent even one unwanted child being born or one person from spreading an STD, then it is worth it to me. Every single unwanted child that suffers through a neglected life will likely grow up to be a chronic burden on the system as well, so why actually contribute to the cycle? There is no fiscal downside to this at all – less children dependent on the system, less disease burdening the health care system. Looks like a winner to me. It appears that you’re just trying to disguise your social hyper-focus in tenuous fiscal terms.
hmmm.
html tag fail
Hal Mabe, what political party does your history tell you that those slavery/Jim Crow/KKK politicians joined when they left the Democratic Party during the Civil Rights Era?
Sandi, the news is that Fox and Rush are suffering? I missed that. What’s your source?
“It is absolutely anyone’s right to believe anything they like. That is not the same as allowing them to dictate the inequality in our laws or customs because of that belief.”
.
In other words, you can be free to believe whatever you want, but if your beliefs are conservative you have to stop with believing them. If you dare express them you will be subjected to hatred, name-calling, labeled as a bigot and protested, all in the name of tolerance and free speech. Right?
.
“Ah david, the news is that FOX and Limbaugh are “suffering” not soaring”
.
Right you are Sandi. The quote below is from the link you posted.
.
“In spite of recent rating losses, Fox remains in the number one cable position, with CNN and MSNBC not far behind. And the opponent-dubbed King of Crap, Rush Limbaugh, still maintains a sizable audience.”
.
If Fox is “suffering”, yet still beating the liberal outlets, what exactly does that say?
The right to “free speech” does not include being protected from the reactions to that free speech. I think that’s pretty clear. And everyone has the option to just keep quiet about their beliefs, on the excellent chance that no one’s interested in hearing about them.
“In other words, you can be free to believe whatever you want, but if your beliefs are conservative you have to stop with believing them. If you dare express them you will be subjected to hatred, name-calling, labeled as a bigot and protested, all in the name of tolerance and free speech. Right?”
–Chuck
-
My, the conservatives seem to be a little extra sensitive these days. Apparently they feel victimized by big, bad, loudmouthed progressives. Let’s recap!
-
Conservatives did not want to stop slavery. They did not want to grant women the right to vote. They fought (for years) so they could keep employing (and in some cases killing) children in factories at rock-bottom wages (that’s CAPTIALISM, bro!). They were outraged when minorities started demanding certain seats on the bus, at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, and race-mixing in schools and (gasp!) families. Abortion is always bad (women hardly ever get pregnant from REAL rape, after all), birth control often is immoral, and we must make SURE that gays can never marry or even (as Virginia’s Constitution provides) enter into legal contracts that might approximate certain tenets of marriage. That’s correct: there are contractual bars to gays written into our state constitution that don’t apply to heteros (equal protection for all be damned). Let’s keep gays off the bench, too, unless progressives put up a real big stink about it and cause all kinds of embarrassment.
-
No bigotry there. It’s simply good old-fashioned traditional values. Why can’t people understand?
-
And all progressives should simply shut up about that stuff, because conservatives might get offended.
Limbaugh’s shows are hemorrhaging advertisers and profits according to Cumulus Media:
—
“Cumulus Media, a radio company that carries Limbaugh’s show in 38 markets, reported millions of dollars in lost revenue and attributed the losses in part to the Limbaugh advertiser fallout. Dial Global, a radio syndication company, reported roughly $100 million in losses for 2012 and publicly cited Limbaugh as a significant contributing factor.”
—
Limbaugh sleeps with the rats, and even the rats are complaining…[can't remember who said this, but it is appropriate].
Anyone on Dan’s blog believe in ghosts?
—-
http://news.yahoo.com/haunted-trauma-tsunami-survivors-japan-turn-exorcists-182857421.html
Hey if Miriam’s reading, congrats on your review today.
Spending is not the only problem and the only reason for the deficit.
–
“Tax revenue will total 16.9 percent of gross domestic product this year, the CBO predicts, compared with 18.5 percent of GDP in 2007. It looks as if it will take another year, until 2014, for tax revenue to get back to 18 percent of GDP, which has been the average level since 1973.”
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0304/Tax-revenue-to-hit-record-this-year.-So-is-spending-the-problem
–
Someone needs to have the courage to “bray” that it is not as simple as the simple minded want to make it seem.
And stop whining that nothing has been cut:
–
“The spending cuts that began to take effect Friday, known as sequestration and totaling about $1 trillion through 2023, come on top of $1.5 trillion in reductions that Mr. Obama and Congress committed to in 2011, mainly from the accord that averted the nation’s first debt default.”
–
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/us/politics/cuts-to-achieve-goal-for-deficit-but-toll-is-high.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Chuck, if you have a reading comprehension problem, then just say so.
–
There is no way on this or any other planet that sayin “It is absolutely anyone’s right to believe anything they like. That is not the same as allowing them to dictate the inequality in our laws or customs because of that belief” means “you can be free to believe whatever you want, but if your beliefs are conservative you have to stop with believing them“. Nor does it mean “If you dare express them you will be subjected to hatred, name-calling, labeled as a bigot and protested, all in the name of tolerance and free speech“.
–
While it matters greatly how you express your beliefs and whether you do so to stop something due to that belief, just speaking your belief is NOT what gets anyone labeled as a bigot, racist unless it is, or insulted for just having that belief. It is just dishonest to claim that you get labeled or insulted just for being conservative. And very telling. Apparently you are only open to left wing insults and the right wing insults just go by without any notice.
A rock star who hires bodyguards can afford to be tolerant….Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Magic Bus Hippies, 1798
“If Fox is “suffering”, yet still beating the liberal outlets, what exactly does that say?”
You can’t fix stupid?
Chuck says
““In spite of recent rating losses, Fox remains in the number one cable position, with CNN and MSNBC not far behind. And the opponent-dubbed King of Crap, Rush Limbaugh, still maintains a sizable audience.”
.
If Fox is “suffering”, yet still beating the liberal outlets, what exactly does that say?”
What it says Chuck, is that both Faux and Limbaugh are currently in a downward spiral, that CNN and MSNBC are gaining on them, and that if current trends continue it’s possible in the near future that those positions may change. It also says that revenue for both Limbaugh and Fox are down
substantially and if trends continue more advertisers and some stations may begin withdrawing support or jumping ship. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
The Republicon party found that out in 2012. Fox and Limbaugh can follow the same path or wake up and swmell the roses.
As we talk about spending cuts we should consider some of the following.
1. Stop permitting corporations to defer income from foreign controlled corporations; (10 year expenditure reduction=$426 Billion)
2. Stop permitting corporations to accelerate depreciation of machinery/equipment; (10 year expenditure reduction=$218 Billion)
3. Stop permitting exclusion of interest on state/local bonds; (10 year expenditure reduction=$146 Billion)
4. Stop permitting corporations to deduct U.S. production activities; (10 year expenditure reduction=$124 Billion)
5. Stop permitting corporations to take credits for investments in low income housing; (10 year reduction in spending=$68 Billion)
6. Stop permitting corporations to expense research/experimentation expenses; (10 year expenditure reduction=$66 Billion)
The above mentioned expenditure reductions total $1.048 Trillion.
Additional spending reductions might include permitting Medicare to negotiate drug prices with big pharmacy companies. 10 savings in this one area would be $541 Billion. Doing this would also save state governments $72 Billion over 10 years and individuals to save $112 billion during the same time frame.
The biggest tax expenditures however are offered to individuals. These include exclusion of health insurance benefits from income by employers, deduction for mortgage interest, reduced tax rates on dividends & long term capital gains and exclusion of pension contributions and earnings. These 4 tax expenditures cost the Treasury $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
What if we could reduce those expenditures just by 50%. The 10 year expenditure reductions would total approximately $2.4 Trillion.
That would be, in my view, a significant start toward fiscal sanity at the federal level and energize our economy in ways that we cannot imagine.
Chuck @ 1:48,
“If Fox is “suffering”, yet still beating the liberal outlets, what exactly does that say?”
I’d guess it make a pretty compelling argument that the majority of voters in this nation obviously don’t not watch Faux news.
By the way, the reduction in expenditures I mentioned in #34 above don’t include the savings of more than $500 Billion over ten years in Medicare savings.
If Fox is “suffering”, yet still beating the liberal outlets, what exactly does that say?”
It says that the core audience for Fox and Rush are seeing the same demographic declines as the GOTP. The heavily white, heavily male, predominately southern and rural western audience with reactionary attitudes is aging out of prominence, and Fox and Rush are so deeply enmeshed in catering to the prejudices of that demographic that they face a choice of fairly radical reinvention or continued decline.
_
Given that reinvention would require a new type of “conservative” audience from which to model in crafting a new identity, and no such new dominant “conservative” identity has appeared, the course they now pursue is to wring the last drop out of the shrinking reactionary “conservative” base.
-
But don’t despair, Fox viewers and dittoheads. Rupert and Rush still welcome you to contribute to their wealth as long as you can, and promise to continue providing you the distorted and misleading entertainment that your confirmation biases crave.
Well, as long as we are talking about spending cuts, let’s talk about this:
.
Why on earth are we building Egypt’s military? Egypt is now led by the Muslim Brotherhood and we continue to arm them with over a billion dollars of military aid each year.
.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/02/28/looking-for-sequestration-defense-cuts-try-military-aid-to-egypt
.
And now the new SecState moves to release millions in economic aid as well.
.
http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-says-us-releasing-millions-aid-egypt-161105370.html
.
So under Obama’s sequestration plan we have to cut our own military but we have money to build another country’s military? Good plan! Money issues aside, didn’t we already do this once with the Iran/Iraq war? Is backing the wrong horse the new national pastime? What’s next? Maybe send a few nuclear physicists to Iran and rocket scientists to North Korea?
Hey, I thought that all we needed was for the rich to pay their fair share… http://www.cnbc.com/id/100518058, wait they are already paying the most taxes in decades. You ready want more taxes on the rich, make them on everyone so everyone knows what it is like. Most of the money is held in the middle class, to pay down the debt, the middle class should pay their fair share but no the rich are the problem. I guess it is more lib progressive nonsense of “tax them not me, I’m a victim”
Chuck
Progressives on this blog have been calling for the cessation of all military aid
and money to buy arms to anybody for a long time. That goes for Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, India and anybody else in the middle east tht I have left out. It’s past time for us to stop armig the world so they can shoot at each other and us. We also need to leave Germany, Britain, France Japan Spain, and anybody else alone and let them pay for their own damned military.
A Ryan wrote: “Most of the money is held in the middle class”
Not in the United States it’s not. To think it is, is to believe nonsense. As he’s elected to prove with the above statement, A Ryan believes nonsense.
“So under Obama’s sequestration plan we have to cut our own military”
First, the plan may have originated in the WH but both houses of Congress had to pass it. Second, the Republican House is already proposing a bill to allow the Pentagon to sidestep the most onerous provisions of the sequester while leaving deep cuts to social programs intact. Third, the World stage is not as cut-and-dried as you would have it, sometimes it is necessary to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Try and keep up.
“Most of the money is held in the middle class, to pay down the debt, the middle class should pay their fair share but no the rich are the problem. I guess it is more lib progressive nonsense of “tax them not me, I’m a victim.”
–A. Ryan
A. Ryan, I’m curious: how did you arrive at your conclusion that most of the wealth in the United States is held by the middle class?
Dan Casey | March 5, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Hal Mabe,
What you wrote seems correct, with one huge asterisk. Where did I mention ANY political party in my post? What I was writing about was the difference in political philosophies, conservatism vs. progressivism.
As you’ve noted, the progressives are almost always on the side of “right,” and the conservatives always side with the “wrong.” The fact that each identify with a different party label than they used to is meaningless in terms of the discussion.
XXX LYPOCRISY ! ! ! Nice try Dan; but the dog won’t hunt. Hal Mabe was
dead on; the liberal progressive Democrat party is worse today than 150 years ago. Thanks to liberal progressives we are experiencing the most corrupt administration in American history which may, in fact, be a complere fraud aided and abetted by the lieberal media who try to twist the news just like you did her post.
It seems to be a natural trait for liberal progressives to accuse conservatives of all the nasty, evil things they do while continuing down the path of big brother government will save us all. It all Lypocrisy and, it’s starting to fall
apart. Now big government has a sequestration rift as the peons learn just how miniscule they are in the power elites scam for more and more power.
Obama: Make sequestration (his idea) hurt as bad as we said it would.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/
-
“The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, compared to the average income of the rest of the population, which is around $51,000. The real disparity between the classes isn’t in income, however, but in net value: The 1 percent are worth about $8.4 million, or 70 times the worth of the lower classes.”
ARyan, you’ve called yourself “young” before. Consider that you might have a lot to learn. You couldn’t be MORE wrong.
Wow A. Ryan, way to go out on an unsupported limb!
–
As I posted above, as a percentage of the GDP, “the rich” are not paying “their fair share”. I will go out on a limb and guess that you are not wealthy and therefore you should open your eyes, you are “a victim”. The system is not rigged in your favor either. Do some checking, it is rigged for them. The rich made the real gains as we lost ground…look it up.
The rich are holding the liberals hostage.!!!!!!!!!….Oh Lawdy, what ever will they do?….Always waiting on someone else to provide what you need rather than getting off of your duff`s and doing it for yourself.You people are always a victim of something, aren`t you ?
I guess it depends on your definition of rich. looking at this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Distribution_of_Wealth,_2007.jpg (I know wiki isn’t acceptable for real research but this is a blog) the 1% holds around 34% of the wealth in the US. That amount is high and is growing but it still means 66% is held by the lower classes. That is my point.
Yes, I’m young and unwealthy but I am no victim. I have the potential to make a lot of money.
I hear a lot about the income of execs raising compared to employees and how the gap has grown. One thing you never hear is the fact that the execs are responsible for more employees than before. Shouldn’t they get paid more for having to deal with more employees?
A.Ryan, the chart you linked to shows that 20 percent of the people in the United States own 85 percent of its wealth.
There is no logic anywhere that, under such circumstances, allows you to conclude that the “middle-class” holds a majority of the wealth.
Unless you redefine the rich as “middle-class.” That seems to be what you’re doing.
Each year, the United States gives up roughly 70 -100 billion in lost revenue through tax breaks, subsidies and loopholes, according to official government estimates
—
Looking at the figures based on data from the Office of Management and Budget, the United States could put another $20 billion in its coffers over 10 years if it taxed the investment gains of hedge funds and private equity executives as ordinary income. The so-called carried interest is treated like capital gains, which is taxed at a much lower rate.
—
Additionally, the corporate” jet break” amounts to about $2 billion to $3 billion in a decade. Although seemingly miniscule, these tax breaks, loopholes and subsidies chip away at what should be readily available revenue for education, infrastructure, etc. With corporations, the resulting loss of federal revenue is a “death by a thousand cuts” scenario.
—
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities provides figures on corporate revenue contributions to states: “corporate income taxes supplied 10.2 percent of state tax revenue in the states levying them in 1979, but just 6.3 percent [by] 2000.” http://tinyurl.com/2fw5fen
—
Corporations not only are making unprecedented profits, they now minimally contribute to the “general welfare” on the federal level, as well as to state coffers – these same tax breaks and subsidies are often offered by the states where corporations are located.
—
Where is the outrage from those whiners who complain about the “leeches” who pay no taxes? Why the double standard? Haven’t we been told that corporations are [just] people too? Why don’t they have to pay “their” fair share?
According to ARyan’s logic, 100 people with $50K each should have to come up with as much as one guy with $5,000,000. Because 50% of the wealth is held by those 100 people. This is incredibly ridiculous.
So I was doing bit of reading on the French Revolution (1789-99) and I thought this was interesting:
-
“The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a lasting impact on French history and more broadly throughout the world. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed within three years. French society underwent an epic transformation, as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside.[1] Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy–of monarchy, aristocracy, and religious authority–were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights.
-
Amidst a fiscal crisis, the common people of France were increasingly angered by the incompetency of King Louis XVI and the continued indifference and decadence of the aristocracy. This resentment, coupled with burgeoning Enlightenment ideals, fueled radical sentiments, and the French Revolution began in 1789 with the convocation of the Estates-General in May. The first year of the Revolution saw members of the Third Estate proclaiming the Tennis Court Oath in June, the assault on the Bastille in July, the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, and an epic march on Versailles that forced the royal court back to Paris in October. The next few years were dominated by struggles between various liberal assemblies and a right wing of supporters of the monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
My son once pointed out to me, after studying some revolution in history class, that every revolution we study – French & Russian being the two biggies – it’s very evident in hind-sight that circumstances were ripe for social unrest and upheaval. How could there NOT have been revolutions in France and Russia? Yet, we consider times now to be “different”, and our country immune from the same forces that brought those revolutions about – mainly, disparity in wealth distribution.
Some would say that since 1981 their has been a revolution going on in the U.S. In this case it has been the wealthy, privileged & powerful against the rest of our society. The economic numbers suggest they are winning!
And earlier than the Russian and French Revolutions, the Roman commoners “Plebs” had their own “revolts” against the state of things in 494[BCE], and then again ten years later. The Roman “plebs” is translated to mean ‘the people”.
Without their revolt [general strike] against the “Patricians”, they would never had held office nor had a say in their destiny.
—-
The book I am reading, “The Rise of Rome”, illustrates how history continually repeats itself. Contrasts between Ancient Rome and present day US is interesting.
@Kristen 51, I don’t believe that sounds ridiculous. It isn’t “compassionate” but I think you should pay for what you use.
@Dan, I guess I am redefining “middle class.” But, I did hear a lot from the OWS crowd about the 1% owning everything and that isn’t true. The top %1 owns 34% of the wealth but 37% of the income taxes. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/top-1-of-american-taxpayers-pay-almost-as-much-in-taxes-as-bottom-95-and-half-of-that-group-paid-nothing-in-2010/ I guess that is fair.
The best job title in this country is “failed CEO”. These individuals blow through billions of the stockholders’ money while their Boards of Directors do nothing to stop the bleeding. Then, once the damage has been one, they are given generous severance packages to “just go away”. Rick Wagoner (GM) and Carly Fiorina (HP) come to mind, but there are countless others. Ironically, Fiorina referred to her business expertise as an asset when she ran for public office. Hmm…
The simple fact is that far too many Boards of Directors are filled with the CEO’s cronies who simply rubber stamp whatever the CEO wants to do. I suspect that includes setting CEO compensation, whether or not the pay reflects results.
“Dan, I guess I am redefining “middle class.”
–A.Ryan
Then THAT is the problem. The problem is not what you heard OWS people argue — anybody can argue anything, after all, and those arguments don’t necessarily change any facts whatsoever. The problem is you don’t have a concept of what “middle class” means.
If you divide wealth into 5 groups (lowest 20 percent to highest 20 percent) then the “middle class,” at most, are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quints.
They own 14.6 percent of the wealth, according to the pie chart you referenced. And if you include the lowest quint, they own a total of 15 percent.
So you must believe the “middle class” is the top 20 percent.
Why should we pay attention to you when you spout stuff like that?
I think the current head of J.C. Penney is about to join the Rick Wagoner-Carly Fiorina crowd.
A Ryan, I didn’t call it non- compassationate, and I’m not a particularly compassionate person. I said it was ridiculous, and it is.
old blue,
The worst offender in my mind was the exit package that bob nardelli got when he was axed at Home Depot. It brings to mind that I did sell the HD stock I held back then for that reason. Look what it’s doing today! I bet there’s lots of happy shareholders in Home Depot these days.
AWood and A. Ryan: “Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony.”
–
If your skills are that lame, do not try to respond. No one called you a victim A. Ryan and no one declared themselves one either Awood. But only a true and unsupportable fool thinks the systems in this nation are not rigged to benefit the wealthy.
You may be right Dan, I have heard some lifetime customers vow never to go back to Penney’s. They are that ticked and Penney’s had so little that was special in the first place.
A. Ryan, this guy only uses 4 groups:
–
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjan13/4-classes01-13.html
–
1. Parasitic financial Aristocracy (creates no value, skims national surplus)
2. High value creation (employed, heavily taxed)
3. Low value creation (employed/informal economy, lightly taxed)
4. No value creation (unemployed, dependent)
@Dan,
You can make lines wherever you want. Obama and Romney defined the middle class as $250,000 or less.
-
“To make it into the top 1 percent a household would need to make more than $250,000 per year.”
http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-average-household-income-us-recession-income-distribution/
-
So, yes anything below that 1% is considered middle class.
You can pay attention to me if you want. I’m just trying to say everyone should pay (taxes) something. Maybe Income is not the best way to tax people.
Selling on a low is always a sucker move, Frank.
A Ryan, I think you’re on to something. Maybe wealth is what should be taxed, not just income. Why on earth should the toughest way of earning a living be the one thing unprotected from taxation? Why should passive earnings get preferential treatment, and cash sitting fallow be relatively free of taxation?
Sandi’s link @#64 makes the point I was going to make: That it’s those who are rich by financial engineering, whose self-enrichment maneuvers create little added value, who’ve been waging and winning a war against the middle class in the U.S. That’s why the imprecise rhetoric about “job creators” is harmfully misleading, as is using the phrase “small business” to include some banks and other large corporations, if they fit the Wall Street definition of small cap, i.e. capitalized at between 300 million to 2 billion dollars(!).
-
On the individual level, it’s wealth, and not annual income, that matters most. That’s what perpetuates social inequalities; it’s the difference between some athlete or entertainment schmuck making a big payday for a few years, versus a Koch, Forbes or Mellon Scaife who starts with a fortune and makes even more. Ironically it’s the latter types who’ve been so resentful of fair taxation levels, unlike even richer folks than them who made it themselves like Gates, Buffet, and Bloomberg, who all support progressive tax fairness.
what we really need to bring back is a deep estate tax. am i aware that its double taxation, yes i am.
well warren,
I know lots of folks who aren’t at the gates level, but came from inglorious beginnings unlike mellon schaife, who abhor being singled out by the likes of today’s libs to pay more, more, more. there’s far fewer of the mellon scaifes who virtually never worked a day in their life, and the folks who started out with nothing, and made something. But, you wouldn’t know about that, would you?
Penny’s will not survive it’s present leadership. I think the guy was mis-guided in terms of his business plan, and I think he under-estimated the costs of federal regulation.
Frank, the Penney’s board was misguided in hiring the new CEO. His success was in niche retailing, developing Apple stores, where he had great success. Whatever led the board to believe he could handle department stores I will never understand.