Romney’s great divide
The Republican professes to sincerely believe that almost half the nation is a drain on the other half.
Repugnant as it is, Mitt Romney’s dismissal of nearly half of American households as irresponsible parasites that feed on the hard work of others serves a useful function. This is a rock that needed turning over for a closer look at its underlying assumptions.
Romney’s unguarded remarks at a private fundraiser exposed a vein of deep resentment running through a portion of the electorate. It blames the nation’s disabled and dispossessed for economic woes, and sees this year’s presidential campaign as a choice between its “makers” and “takers.”
September 19, 2012 - 6:17 AM
I thought this editorial at the NY Times made some good points.
In the past, the working class and Occupy Wall Street have been accused of waging “class warfare”. Well, now we see who the real class warriors are and it includes Mitt Romney.
OWS should be thanked for pointing out there IS a class war going on and that ‘class’ is an idea that is still relevant because it lays bare what is going on in today’s society.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/mitt-romney-class-warrior.html
…When you think of class warfare, you probably think of inciting anger, resentment and jealousy among the have-nots against the haves. That’s what Mr. Romney has accused Mr. Obama of doing, but those charges have always been false. The truth is that Mr. Romney has been trying to incite the anger of a small slice of the richest Americans who need no government assistance but get it anyway, against the working poor, older Americans, the disabled workers and veterans, and even a significant chunk of middle-class Americans….
Number on food stamps double under Obama.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/crs-report-number-of-able-bodied-adults-on-food-stamps-doubled-after-obama-suspended-work-requirement/article/2508430#.UFm452eQl8G
Like most of the neoCon/GOP stripe, Romney got it backwards. It’s not the number of people paying (or not paying) income taxes, it’s the what the government is spending that’s the problem.
The eoCon/GOPs are obsessed with getting people to pay more in taxes, an obsession borne of class warfare.
The thinking goes something like this: If the middle-class and wealthy people are paying too much in taxes (which they are), and the lower-income folks are paying too little…
…then we obviously have to punish low-income people by making them pay more!. It’s not fair, see, for some to be extorted by the state while others are not.
The only “fair” solution is to greatly decrease the tax burden on those paying now. Of course, this means actually cutting the size and scope of the government, which an honest evaluation of the proper and constitutional functions of government, which means goring someone’s ox…and no one in power (or trying to be in power) is willing to do that.
But for all you big government statists, fear not: Romney is not actually proposing this, he is proposing having Uncle extort money from those who have none (a mathematically challenging proposition). Obama and his CPUSA/Dem Party crones aren’t proposing this either; they prefer to destroy incentive and success by taking more of the fruits of that incentive and success.
Fear not: your government will not shrink.
“Irresponsible parasites”?
Please show us where Romney used those words.
He did not, yet to anyone who reads this piece and doesn’t know exactly what he said, they will go away thinking he did.
Yet another attempt by the RT to mislead the uninformed.
I am reminded of a call I received a few months ago from someone representing a group trying to get a law passed to require internet vendors to charge sales taxes like other small businesses. The pitch was precisely that described above: your customers pay sales taxes, so why shouldn’t everyone?
I told the lady I did not support the effort (I do not sell anything over the internet, so it would not have affected me) but would sign a petition eliminating (or lowering) the sales taxes everyone pays. She was not impressed…I have no doubt she was a trustworthy republican. Oh well.
Of those who paid neither income nor payroll taxes, only 10.3% were elderly and 6.9% had incomes under $20K.
Of those who paid no income tax, only 28.3% paid payroll taxes.
46% of all households paid no federal income tax in 2011.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443816804578003970232983216.html?mod=WSJ_hpsMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
An interesting analysis of the recovery during the Clinton administration:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-clinton-recovery-unrepeatable
The article concludes:
To recreate the policy conditions which prevailed during the Clinton Recovery (not necessarily the President’s preferred policies), we would theoretically need to find a Presidential candidate who would:
– Raise taxes on the wealthy to improve public finances, but also be willing to reduce taxes on capital gains
– Cut military spending whenever possible
– Agree to reduce the scope of government entitlements and take on entrenched constituencies, in spite of multiple decades of program expansion, and in spite of the political risks (there were multiple resignations at Health and Human Services after the Welfare Reform Act)
– Encourage free trade and deregulation
– Support private sector solutions to healthcare
– Maintain conservative housing underwriting standards, without coercing private sector entities to act as conduits for fiscal policy/affordable lending programs
Good luck finding this person, since he/she would be a centrist, and most likely excommunicated by their party for heresy.
#6 How many were millionaires, John R?
#5 Among the people who want Internet sales to be taxed are your neighbors and friends — including Republicans — who are brick and mortar entrepreneurs, 89Hoo. Level playing field. I’m sure they wouldn’t mind taxes also being lowered, but no-tax Internet sales make life even tougher for them. And, BTW, help add at least some to the deficit.
@6 JohnR, I’m doing a quick search through the article you linked to but the numbers you cite aren’t in there.
I’ve not read the entire article to be fair.
#10 I think you have to click on one of the side articles, Scott M, some of which you can’t see without subscribing.
9 – as I said in my post #5, gdad, I have no doubt the lady who called me was (unlike me) a trustworthy republican. Thank you for helping to make my point that the neoCons/GOP is NOT the party of smaller government, or that would be working on finding a way to reduce the government’s obligations and lower taxes for everyone, including the brick-and-mortar retailers. Instead, they stamp their feet and snivel that someone else is succeeding, and they want Uncle to do something about it, even as they claim to be capitalists and small-government sorts. They are neither.
Scott, I re-checked the WSJ link and the numbers are indeed there, they are toward the end of the article.
Most of the online WSJ is for subscribers only. It’s in today’s print edition of the WSJ as well.
Scott, try this link.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443816804578003970232983216.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Scott, his numbers are in the graphic beside the article.
Of the 18.1% who paid no income or payroll tax, 10.3% were elderly, 6.9% had income under 20K and <1% would be the "others" who may have made money, maybe even lots of money (as in wealthy people who pay no income or payroll taxes).
Of the 47% who do not pay income taxes, the aforementioned 18.1% also did not pay payroll taxes, but 28.3% did pay payroll taxes, IOW, the working poor.
Maybe John R and Romney can figure a way for them to make enough money to have to pay income taxes on it. I am sure they would love to be in that bracket as it would be a mighty step up!
State sales taxes, Real Estate taxes and personal property taxes are the local and state revenue. Since these are the local cops, firefighters, teachers and public service workers we most come into contact with and most of us consider essential to an orderly society, I fail to see how being against these taxes is helpful to anyone, any person or any business. Do you know the price of one bridge replacement, one sewer upgrade, one new school bus, one new library?
Taxes are not too high. That is simply a right wing and libertarian meme. Taxes are in fact at modern history lows. Running a nation is expensive. If you want to live where that is not the priority, you are free to do so.
It is not fair to brick and mortar retailers for internet sales to be tax free. Sure consumers love it, but it is unfair competition. You would see that quickly if you were a retailer.
Hate taxes as you will, but since we have them, and we will continue to have them, they should apply equally. They do not.
#12 So you think government should continue to favor Internet merchants over brick and mortar. Because we sure as heck can’t completely eliminate taxes.
17 – nooo, gdad, please read with some intent to comprehend. I favor a level playing field, but right now we have a tax code that punishes (i.e., extorts from) some at the expense of others. Instead of extending the extortion, I favor a review of what the government SHOULD be doing, which is far less than it is trying to do now, and THEN evaluating what we need to raise in taxes, and how best to do that. And then apply the taxes across the board.
Just going in and raising taxes across the board – out of a misguided and wrongly applied principle of “fairness” – allows Washington to escape its obligations to spend wisely.
Put differently, I favor a flat rate, as close to zero as possible. I know we will never get to zero, but it should be a goal.
16 – you really would make a wonderful propagandist, Sandi.
And you make a great Don Quixote, 89Hoo. “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”
Go get those windmills!
Here’s an explanation of why people don’t end up paying federal income tax (along with a nifty graph, too!) http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/07/27/why-do-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2/
20 – I will consider that a compliment, Sandi.
An explanation of where entitlement benefits go, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677
Also, a very well-sourced explanation of who pays taxes, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
Both make for interesting reading!
Thanks everyone. I was looking for text.
Speaking of “some intent to comprehend” 89Hoo, have you caught on yet that state sales tax is not the federal government, the IRS nor any of the other windmills you are attacking in #18? Asking the internet retailers to collect the state sales tax just as the brick and mortar stores must do is precisely “apply the taxes across the board”.
To #21 (Dave F): Sounds like a good argument for broad-based tax reform and simplification to me. Too bad neither Obama nor Romney are talking about such things.
89hoo stated ” I favor a review of what the government SHOULD be doing, which is far less than it is trying to do now,”
———————
Really Hoo? What is supposed to be a governments role?
To go back and look at government for what ist really is, One must first look at history.
The first “government” was The patriach, father, grandfather, Family leader.
What was their responsibility?
Laws, Food, shelter, care for all with the available resources. In some societies, when resources became scarce, some family members became expendable -old women, children, crippled, and would be used for food stock (See Darwin- Voyage of the Beagle)
The next government was the tribe, often simply an extended family.
What was the tribal leaders responsibility?
Laws, Food, shelter, care for all within the limits of available resources.
Again, some societies allowed for the sick, the cripple, the old to be expendable.
The next government type was the monarchy, often also a theocracy.
What was the Monarchy’s responsibility?
Worship, Laws, Food, shelter, care for all within the limits of available resources.While some societies allowed for the sick, the cripple, the old to be expendable, the above dictated an approach in line with religious beliefs, to more closely bind the populace to the leaders. And because the resources were greater, and the familiar bond between ruler and ruled began to be too far removed from the initial tribal or family group where everyone was related, the leaders began amassing personal fortunes at the expense of their subjects.
The City-State democracies of the Greek-Roman era followed pretty much the same responsibilities as the Monarchy, but imposed responsibilities on the populace geared towards the protection of the Government first, the populace second, But still maintained the basic structure of Laws, food, shelter care for all within the limits of the available resources.
The monarchies of the dark and middle ages removed a great portion of the governments role of responsibility towards it’s people and instead shifted towards the people being “owned” by the government.
There was little in this type of government that followed the initial “laws, food, shelter, care for all” of the earlier forms. Resources were shifted to creating personal wealth for the religious, the merchant and ruling classes.
This lead to such things as the Magna Carta, the French Revolution and The American revolution.
(This is a bare bones history lesson)
When the Government of the USA was formed, The framework was that the people would be the government, determining what their best interests were, and that any resources required to provide for the government would be obtained by a sliding scale, those who owned more, paid more. Any resources above what was needed by the government was applied to increasing the country’s ability to remain soveriegn.
Until the uncivil war, taxes were modest as resouces were plentiful as were opportunities as the USA was an agricultural based economy.
The 1860′s changed everything. The government became aware that a strong state based government was a threat to the nation as a whole. As the world itself changed due to increased technological growth, the USA had to adapt. More resources were needed to expand transportation systems, communication systems and financial systems.
Abuses of power, by states, by industrialists led to the formation of workers unions which took part of the responsibility governments had sholdered in the past: The food, shelter, care for all within the limits of resources.
The first world war opened the eyes of Amrica’s government to the fact that we could no longer compete in the world with a weak central government, and the crash of the markets in the 1920′s showed that a populace of the size of the USA could no longer exist on an agricultural economy, There were too few employment opportunities, and the era of the small sustainable farm was no longer an obtion.
The Roosevelt years saw the implimentation of reforms that allowed the government to take responsibilities that while once the domain of the family and tribal governments, had been lost in the larger more impersonal governments such as monarchies – The care for the sick, the elderly, the unemployable. To increase the economic strenght of the nation Infrastructure was mandated for transportation, dommunication and finances. Regulations were created to prevent the growth of any component from becoming more powerful than the government, which worked well until the Reagan ere perverted them and allowed the Financial and Industrial sectors free reign.
Now, I see little that the Governemnt does that is outside the traditional scope of government and a great deal more that it should be doing, as what is truely a country or nation? The people who reside there, or the corporations and other artifical social structures that are currently at the top of the food chain?
25 – I do tend to lump more things under Washington than is true – a tendency I really do try to guard against, but not always successfully. Thank you for the reminder.
Let me just say that we need a review of what government at any level should provide. And accompanying lower taxes, evenly applied. There is much waste in Washington, Richmond and Salem that could be reduced.
We are in need of so many broad based reforms it is starting to look like we are hypochondriacs complaining of our ills! We need broad based election reforms, tax structure reforms, health care reforms, education reforms, budget reforms, spending reforms, the list goes on and on; is there anything we have been doing remotely right in the last 50 years?
89Hoo:
Your argument/perspective on the role of government, taxes, and the state sounds eerily similar to the argument that widespread vaccination causes more harm than good (or is at least unnecessary).
That’s a leap, WPGHSC. I’m not sure where you are getting that.
Well said Joe M! I agree.
I have no doubt there is waste in every system, even in every home. That is certainly something we all need to be aware of and hold elected officials accountable for. It is not the same as wholesale reformation along the lines you commented on 89Hoo.
You and some others here, reinforce for me daily my contention that those who do not like, or see the role of government as helpful, necessary or needed, should ever run it.
Yes, Joe, I’m going to stick with my view that government needs to do far less than it is trying to do now. I realize that many – most? – feel that government (at whatever level) needs to protect, food, clothe, and nurture them, but I’m pretty certain I can do a better job of that than the government can.
33 – just out of curiosity, Sandi, which of my proposed wholesale reformation concerns you the most?
34. The bad thing about a democracy is that when people see that they can get free money from the treasury if they vote certain people in office, many of them will do exactly that. This country is at a tipping point. An entitlement society cannot survive. It wasn’t sugar coated for the politically correct crowd, but Romney spoke the truth.
#36 – Exactly, Jim. When people think Romeny/Ryan wants to kill their grandma, and Obama wants to give them stuff, who do you think they’re going to vote for?
#36 Touche’.
I am fairly certain you can handle those responsibilities too 89Hoo, which might explain why the government is not trying to feed, clothe, and nurture you. They are however working to protect you and whether you admit it or not, that is necessary. Police, firefighters and EMT’s are an important response in any emergency or natural disaster.
Do you dispute that there are people who need to be fed, clothed and “nurtured” on some level? Why do you insist people go “hat in hand” hoping for charity that will absolutely vary, instead of a central, easily found, system that treats them all the same? That you do not want help and God willing will never need it, does not change the fact that there are millions who do. Even a trip downtown will inform you of the mentally and physically handicapped people who certainly appear to have no one else looking out for them. Why can’t you and others just go after the cheats and frauds who are scamming the system and leave the legitimately needy alone? I do not want the simple minded, hygiene challenged, unstable people who populate too many of our “forced herding” making my food or cleaning my hotel room. They deserve care and it is our duty to provide that in a system that is managed and accountable.
Maybe you do not know anyone who is disabled, unemployed or even mentally ill, but I do and they literally cannot survive without the system that is the modern “dole”. If you know a way to fix that, speak up.
No JimW, he spoke insults and political memes! That is why he is in trouble for it.
Well 89Hoo, I suppose your “proposed wholesale reformation” of the Fed and our currency is the one that “concerns” me the most. It is simply not going to happen. So when you talk reform and I know how far you want to take it, we might as well be talking about alien abductions as far as I am concerned.
BTW, speaking of people voting themselves “free money”, I think the fact that there are many working folks who pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do folks like, oh say, Governor Romney, belies the TP/GOP concern for the coffers of this nation! It simply does not wash.
The bad thing about capitalism is that when people see that they can get free money from the government in the form of subsidies and tax breaks for their corporations if they vote for certain people, many of them will do exactly that. This country is at a tipping point. An entitlement corporate-industrial complex cannot survive. It isn’t sugar-coated for the GOP/NFR/capitalist elite crowd, but the truth stands as just that: The Truth (and Romney ain’t speakin’ it). Selah.
To #29 (Sandi): You said, “We need broad based election reforms, tax structure reforms, health care reforms, education reforms, budget reforms, spending reforms…”
Aye. It’s very true. We desperately need tax reform both for increased revenue and to increase fairness (right now both wealthy investors and the bottom 47% get an unfairly good deal, compared to the middle and upper middle class). We need Social Security and Medicare reform to deal with the crush of baby boomers that’s already started and will continue escalating for 20 years: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/icpGraph.html.
We need to regulatory reform to help businesses start and move faster. We need student loan reform to avoid crushing new graduates with debt. We need pension reform to avoid crushing younger generations with the overly-generous promises made to older workers (promises that are no longer available to the young, BTW). We need disability reform. [Why are disability awards going up markedly, http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibGraphs.html, while physical labor is down?] Why is the labor participation rate falling so rapidly: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/reason-why-unemployment-rate-dropped-labor-participation-rate-fresh-31-year-lows? And the government is still borrowing nearly 40 cents of every dollar it spends.
You also asked, “Is there anything we have been doing remotely right in the last 50 years?” Probably somewhere, but given the number of things that are seriously screwed up today, I’m beginning to wonder. Neither Romney nor Obama have proposed any plans to address the problems I’ve mentioned.
What wholesale reformation of the Fed have I proposed, Sandi, and what changes to the currency?
That’s not free market capitalism, E William.
43….you mean like Solyndra and GM…lol. Not helping your cause E. William.
40. Actually Sandi, Romney’s got a boost from it. And while Obama’s water carriers pint their fingers at Romney’s 47% remark the Middle East brns and our people die. But that’s OK, Obama is spending time with Letterman, JZ and Beyonce…….
#47, no, I mean every other corporation in America that benefits from corporate welfare, and the millionaire elite that think they exist above the laws and have developed a sense of entitlement to special treatment. Romney isn’t helping your cause, JimW.
#38 “pint their fingers” and “Middle East brns”?!? maybe you shouldn’t be concerned with where and with whom Obama spends time, but spend a little time yourself with a basic grammar and mechanics textbook, big guy. geez, and they say public schools are underfunded and failing our students…case in point.
#46, Hoo, I agree. Not “pure” free market capitalism anyway. I don’t think such exists anymore. And I’m not sure it should…any system unchecked becomes dangerous and abusive, and yes, that includes governmental systems as well.
So given the democratic backlash against Romney’s statement about people not paying taxes, I suppose they are going to change there meme about it being patriotic to pay taxes to it’s patriotic to pay taxes, but only if you are rich.
50…Typing in the dark E. William. I should proof read I guess. Thanks for the grammar critique anyway. Looks like I made my point if that’s all you had to come back with “little guy.”
Virginia is the only state that sits squarely in the cross hairs of Obama’s War On Coal AND his war on the defense industry. Elections have consequences. Be VERY CAREFUL what you wish for.
#52 I wouldn’t really call it “it’s patriotic to pay taxes, but only if you are rich” so much as “it’s patriotic to pay your fair share of taxes”.
Rightists, on the other hand, preach “it’s patriotic for the poor and middle class to pay a far higher percentage of their income in taxes than the richest 1%”.
#54 “Obama’s War On Coal” Ah yes, that popular rightist meme of “choose between a healthy economy or a healthy planet”.
“war on the defense industry” Heaven forbid we should ever try to rein in the most bloated, imperialistic military in the world. Blessed are the warmakers!
“Romney’s got a boost from it.”
Depends on who you ask, most polls show him tanking. You’re in trouble when your own vice-presidential candidate calls you “inarticulate” 50 days before the election.
51 – it’s not even close to free market capitalism, EW; it’s much closer to fascism than the free market. We can debate the merits of the free market, though we’d likely have to agree to disagree, but let’s at least make an attempt to get the terms and definitions right.
#53, happy to help, little fella! And that was a stand-alone post to your poor writing/editing skills; you must have missed my #49. Have a beautiful day.
#58, I think we just agree to disagree on this one. While I do agree that we do not have a pure free market capitalist system (and as I said I think it’s a good thing we don’t), I strongly disagree that our system is closer to fascism. In fact, as the grandson of three men who fought to defeat fascism, and as an historian, I find that assertion somewhat alarming and slightly offensive.
I generally respect your posts, Hoo. I find them thoughtful and well-written. I don’t usually agree with your points of view, but appreciate how you state them. But the assertion that we are closer to fascism than capitalism…well, I find it incorrect.
55 – so you would agree to a flat tax, then, with no deductions?
53 – I guess E has never made a typo…
Oh wait – he typed “#38″ when referring to your post #48. So much for that notion…LOL
This blog needs an edit function.
#62 – “This blog needs an edit function.”
It certainly does, Rick.
59…E. …your guy still parties with Letterman, JZ and Beyonce while our people die. You still haven’t addressed that fact. Obama is an apologist for the Islamists. Even the most ardent Kool-aid drinker should be able to see that fact, even if he refuses to admit it.
62…Thanks OR, I saw E Williams error but didn’t think it worthwhile to point it out. I make more than my fair share of typos in this blog so I definitely don’t throw stones at others for doing it. And I’m not the knuckle dragger E. makes me out to be for those typos. However, I will strive to do better.
57…Art, maybe you should ask the Obamas. They requested that their recently purchased luxury home in Hawaii be ready for occupancy in January.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/secret-retirement-plans-does-obama-expect-to-lose/
#34 89 Hoo Wrote”34.Yes, Joe, I’m going to stick with my view that government needs to do far less than it is trying to do now. I realize that many – most? – feel that government (at whatever level) needs to protect, food, clothe, and nurture them, but I’m pretty certain I can do a better job of that than the government can.”
————————————
Lucky you.
The Democracy is the first type of government since the loss of the tribal government where the people actually have a say in what happens, and where the taxes are (at least in many democracies) used to promote a standard of living for all the people, not just the rulers.
Taxes under monarchies and emperors have traditionally been used to promote their interests, and help them remain in power utilizing a strong police/ military force. Same with religious governments,
Currently the USA is slipping from a democracy of the people, to a theocracy, Except in this case, The god is nota supreme being, but the supremely wealthy.
We see evidence in this because the majority of taxes are not used to promote the interests of the people, but the interests of the ruling class, instead of infrastructure we get more military, instead of libraries we military and weapons research, instead of schools we get sports stadiums….
While 89hoo may be able to supply his families needs, being young and educated, but one day, hoo, you may not be able to.I’ve known people like you all my life. when they are riding the crest of the wave, they claimed they got there all by themselves, when they got swamped and wound up in need, it was always someone elses fault as to how they got there.
I know many people who are not able to do well in supporting themselves and their families, they work 50 or sixty hours a week, at multiple jobs, and cannot afford insurance, medical care, decent transportation. They are decent, honest hard working folks, but there are more people than there are decent jobs.
There are always medical bills, tax bills legal bills repair bills, for which there is no money.
Heck, Romney claims Middle class starts at $250,000. I know no one personally who makes that kind of money.
I cannot fathom how it is we are supposed to “address” your assertion that “our guy” chose to keep a schedule while he awaited news of events he could not control from anywhere. There is no amount of koolaide that will change the truth that there is no need to insult a billion Muslims just to satisfy some neocon hate. The movie was a deliberate provocation and someone needed to apologize for it and explain to people who cannot move without government permission that it was not sanctioned by our government.
That terrorists were using the frenzied crowd as a cover for their dastardly terrorist plot is now being known but it needed to be investigated. Jumping to conclusions ends you up in a war. Lesson learned! Yes, there are questions to be answered and lack of security is one of them. Why not have a better candidate, then this crushing and desperate need to blame Obama would not be so obvious.
What you people do not know about diplomacy, secrecy for investigations and the efforts to save lives and calm volatile situations is legend. Except that you can turn it on so easily when there is a TP/GOP candidate in the hot seat. Why is that? You let Bush off for 9/11/01 but want Obama fried for 9/11/12? Sad.
57…Also, I’ll take inarticulate over incompetent anytime.
I don’t make that much either, Joe, and I still am convinced I can do a better job than Uncle. So far, I haven’t been proven wrong.
68″Jumping to conclusions ends you up in a war.”
Here’s a news flash for you Sandi, we’ve been at war with Islamists for years.
60 – yes, EW, both my late grandfathers and many of my uncles (I have a lot, some living, some passed), my late father fought in Europe or the Pacific in WWII, or in Korea or Vietnam against the Communists. They were/are offended at the excesses of government, at all levels, and none are/would be offended at the comparison of the current croney-capitalist system to fascism.
I’m curious as to why you or your relatives would be offended; I haven’t accused you, or them, of being fascists (if anything, we find common ground in our disdain for the current system). I haven’t accused you, or them, of allowing it to happen. We may all disagree as to the comparison to be offended is, well, offensive.
65 – likewise, I saw his error for what it was. I didn’t insult his education or his intelligence, the way he felt it necessary to do to you.
#66 Oh please, JimW, WND? I may as well reference my son’s elementary school papers.
#69 “I’ll take inarticulate over incompetent”
Our previous Chief Executive was both. Hence the huge mess his successor is still cleaning up, despite the GOP’s attempt to make us forget who left said mess in place.
#61 Heck no, because a flat tax has never been proven to work.
#71 Maybe, but our last Chief Executive saw fit to take his eye off the ball by waging a totally unnecessary war in Iraq that turned out to be a godsend for the Islamists. Our current President, much as you probably don’t want to admit it, has been busting his butt trying to mop up this mess.
76 – when has it been tried? And how do you define “proven to work”?
To #76 (Steven K): A flat tax might work better than you think.
For example, did you know that the mortgage interest deduction is of essentially zero benefit to the “bottom 47%” (i.e., those not paying federal income tax)? It benefits doctor and lawyers with big houses the most. The exact same logic applies to the deduction for charitable contributions.
Also, when tax-exempt dollars are set aside for 401k and 403b plans and for federal health savings accounts, the wealthy benefit the most. Those not paying income taxes don’t benefit at all. Participation in such plans needlessly complicates the financial lives of the “bottom 47%” without providing any actual benefit.
These are the unwanted but entirely predictable side-effects of a progressive tax system that features lots of exemptions, credits, and deductions for whatever economic activity is (or was) in vogue in Washington when Congress decided to add a few more layers of gimmickry to the tax code.
75. Steven, I wouldn’t call pouring gasoline on a burning fire “cleaning it up.” But if it works for you…great.
77..Yes Steven, the entire Middle East is on fire and Obama hangs out with Letterman, Beyonce and JZ. He’s obviously doing a great job cleaning up.
76….Steven, are you saying the current tax code works great?
#80 Oh, so ending the unnecessary war in Iraq, making health care more accessible and affordable for all Americans, putting some teeth into our environmental protection laws and banking regulations, cutting taxes for the middle class and trying to get America’s richest 1% to assume a much fairer percentage of the nation’s tax burden is “pouring gasoline on a burning fire”? Please.
Romney wants to return this nation to the exact same policies Dubya used. Now that most certainly WOULD be “pouring gasoline on a burning fire”.
#82 Nope, far from it. If we could just get the one-percenters to go back to a 35% maximum tax rate like we had under Clinton (which, not coincidentally, was the time America was the most prosperous ever), as well as get rid of all the tax loopholes and offshore tax havens these same one-percenters take advantage of, then we’d see some REAL improvement.
#79 Nope, sorry, not buying it. I’ll take Robert Reich’s word on it:
http://robertreich.org/post/11753807617
snip: “Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes.”
“…So when Barack Obama calls for ending the Bush tax cut on incomes over $250,000, he’s only talking about the portion peoples’ incomes that exceed $250,000. He’s not proposing to tax their entire incomes at the higher rate that prevailed under Bill Clinton.”
“Republicans have tried to sow confusion about this. They want Americans to believe, for example, that if the Bush tax cut ended, small business owners with incomes of $251,000 a year would suddenly have to pay 39 percent of their entire incomes in taxes rather than 35 percent. Wrong. They’d only have to pay the 39 percent rate on $1,000 – the portion of their incomes over $250,000.”
“Get it? We already have a flat tax – flat within each bracket.”
It’s no accident Mr. Reich was named one of the ten best cabinet secretaries of the past century by Time Magazine. Believe me, he knows of which he speaks.
Steven, you said a flat tax has never been proven to work. I ask again: when has a flat tax been tried? And how do you define “proven to work”?
Okay, okay, okay, fine. I’ll admit the flat tax hasn’t actually been tried, and with darn good reason: It. Won’t. Work. See post #85 and click on the link.
Steven, Reich doesn’t even answer your own concerns. Here is what he says (from the link you provided):
First, they [flat-tax supporters] say, it would simplify paying taxes. Baloney. Flat-tax proposals don’t eliminate popular deductions.
In my question to you (post 61), I asked: “so you would agree to a flat tax, then, with no deductions?” Note, I specifically eliminated deductions, and did not differentiate between popular, unpopular, whatever. No deductions means no deductions (and to be clear, by “deduction” I mean any and all loopholes, credits, deductions, etc. used to avoid paying taxes). So that concern of Reich’s is answered.
From the link:
Second, they say a flat tax is fairer than the current system because, in Cain’s words, a flat tax “treats everyone the same.”
The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).
Well, we already answered his parenthetical clause at the end, but back to the first part of his response…he’s saying everyone is treated the same inside a tax bracket. That’s like saying all black people are treated the same – because they’re all black – and all white people are treated the same – because they’re all white – so any attempt to treat all people – black and white – the same is unnecessary. It defies logic.
I know, of course, Reich (and, you, I would presume) don’t actually feel that way, so what’s he really trying to say? Oh right: The top 1 percent is now raking in over 20 percent of the nation’s total income and owns over 35 percent of the nation’s wealth.
Okay, then they should assume over 35 per cent of the nation’s individual income tax burden, right? Is that what he (and you) are saying? How much of the tax burden do they assume? Any ideas? Anyone?
89 – and Steven, how do you define “proven to work” whether discussing a flat tax or any other scheme?