How liberals mislead about the tax history of the past 30 years
President Obama’s (latest) soak-the-rich plan is bringing out the worst in his fellow liberals. If you want to understand exactly what’s wrong with their mindset on taxes, and why it is irreconcilable to reality, you must read Michael Tomasky’s column in the Daily Beast today.
Not because Tomasky points out the deficiencies. On the contrary, he recites nearly every one of them with gusto.
To begin, Tomasky states that taxes — not spending, not debt, nor cultural politics, nor anything else — have been “the biggest problem in our politics for the last 30 years.” By “biggest problem,” he apparently means what follows:
The anti-tax revolt that started in 1978 in California (Proposition 13) has destroyed this country. Our taxophobia has made the rich vastly richer and reduced the amount of money for the public benefits the rest of us depend on, and a hundred other horrible things besides.
One can hardly argue against “a hundred other horrible things” that Tomasky hasn’t specified, but there’s plenty to discuss about what’s wrong with the rest of that second sentence.
Part 1: “Our taxophobia has made the rich vastly richer…”: Really? The top marginal tax rate in the Internal Revenue Code is what’s made the rich “vastly richer”? Not such economic trends as the shift toward an information-based services economy, or the ever more rapid rise of global manufacturing competition, or the change in the way corporate boards have awarded executive compensation? Or any of the things Tomasky means, several paragraphs later, when he acknowledges, “A hundred factors affect economic performance”?
Certainly, lower tax rates have allowed higher earners to keep more of what they earn, which has compounding effects on wealth, but the tax code does not explain why those higher earners are earning more than did the higher earners of earlier generations. Which is where the “problem” Tomasky identifies really begins. If you agree that this is a problem, the tax code is not the place to “fix” it.
Part 2: “…and reduced the amount of money for the public benefits the rest of us depend on…”: I didn’t realize columnists at the Daily Beast were on welfare — and with “the rest of us,” Tomasky is necessarily excluding those public functions (e.g., the military) that benefit everyone regardless of income. But that’s a side point. Have lower tax rates really “reduced the amount of money” sent to the government?
From 1944 (the first year federal revenues exceeded even 14 percent of GDP) through that year Tomasky so rues, 1978, federal revenues averaged 17.6 percent of GDP.
From 1979 through 2010, the last complete fiscal year, federal revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP.
Hmmm. That can’t be correct. We all “know” that Republicans since Reagan have been starving the beast. The post-1979 data must be skewed by the Clinton years, right?
Well, federal revenues certainly flourished under Bill Clinton, averaging 19 percent of GDP. But even if we exclude 1993-2000, federal revenues since 1979 have still averaged 17.7 percent of GDP — that is, just a tad more than they averaged before 1979.
OK, Wingfield. But we all “know” that George W. Bush completely obliterated the federal fisc with his ruinous tax cuts.
Not really. Federal revenues from 2001 to 2008 averaged 17.6 percent of GDP. Exactly what they averaged before that dread year of 1978.
It turns out that the Clinton years were an anomaly in modern tax history. Do Tomasky and his fellow travelers truly believe that those eight years were the only ones in which America wasn’t being “destroyed”?
***
So, the premise of Tomasky’s piece is demonstrably wrong. But that doesn’t stop him from making another crucial error.
Presumably, he writes, President Obama’s plan “will include taxing capital gains and carried interest at the same rate (for millionaires only, that is, not for middle-income Wall Street dice-rollers) as regular income.” Presumably, he’s right about that.
Yet, a bit later, he suggests that Rep. Paul Ryan is “stupid, a liar, or something even more malevolent, a morally diseased ogre who secretly believes with his delirious mentor [Ayn Rand] that the rich deserve every handout government can offer them” for saying Obama is engaging in class warfare and claiming these tax increases won’t work economically. Set aside for now Tomasky’s repugnant rhetoric — it hardly qualifies as an argument — that anyone who disagrees with Obama’s position on taxes must lack intelligence, honesty or morals. He unintentionally undermines his own claims — and the argument for raising capital gains tax rates — here:
Under what recent president was the economy strongest? Bill Clinton. Under what recent president were tax rates the highest? Bill Clinton. I don’t claim direct cause and effect. A hundred factors affect economic performance. But I certainly and emphatically claim that recent history disproves Ryan’s [claim that tax increases don't work] to such an extent that he can’t possibly be taken seriously.
If Tomasky won’t claim direct cause and effect, it’s not out of modesty. It’s because it’s not true.
Under which years of the Clinton presidency was the economy strongest? I don’t think anyone would dispute that it was the years 1997 through 2000, when real GDP growth surpassed 4 percent every year. But which part of tax policy changed during this second term of Clinton’s? Not the individual income tax rate; that increase came in 1993. No, it was the tax rate on capital gains, which actually fell in 1997. Tax receipts and the economy soared.
Now, they soared because of the tech bubble, which produced the growth and stock earnings that were taxed in such large numbers. Like Tomasky, I’m not claiming direct cause and effect. But unlike him, I know it defies logic and the facts to claim that the Clinton years prove higher taxes on capital gains won’t hurt the economy.
I’ll leave Tomasky to his opinions as to whether all of this will make for good politics. But, if the American public understands what really happened during the past 30 years, he’ll be wrong about that, too.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
200 comments Add your comment
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
1:56 pm
HDB, I READ the ENTIRE ARTICLE, which I why I posted my comment about it being possibly the dumbest article ever written.
I do not care what was said in the middle of a live interview. Unlike most of you people on here, I can personally state that speaking on live TV and in front of crowds of dozens, if not hundreds of people is a daunting experience for even the pros.
And unlike many of you, I do not harp on one word in a collection of statements in order to play gotcha with the other side.
Only the truly delusional out there would believe that a Congressman with a family of 6 would be spending $200,000 on food in one year’s time. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the Congressman was speaking of ALL his annual expenses, and not that of just his family’s meals.
But logic and intelligence is largely lost on the liberal mind, and usually on the fringes of both sides of the aisle.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
1:59 pm
MarkV, we’ll break this down so that even YOU can understand it.
“From each according to his ability” = The rich can afford to be taxed more.
“To each according to his needs” = Funding social programs and entitlements.
Please tell me how this doesn’t equate to what you and your liberal buddies on this blog advocate on a daily basis, and then tell me I don’t understand the philosophy.
John
September 20th, 2011
2:06 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
I don’t care if he was strictly talking about food or including other expenses or the experience of a live interview. He was asked a direct question…would he lay off employees if his taxes were increased. He could not say he would, which is the claim he and every Republican is making. As a politician he claims raising taxes would lead to job loss but as a businessman, he refused to say he would lay off employees if his taxes were increased.
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
2:14 pm
carlosgvv @10:31 am
Please define “fair share”. Use as much space as necessary, but please be specific.
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
2:17 pm
Junior Samples “Debbie’s comment was regarding the tax breaks afforded to the top 1 percent of higher-earners (did I get that right Kyle?). Therefore its not afforded to everyone else, including you and I. ”
I’ve been looking over the tax code, and I don’t see any special tax breaks that are limited to the top 1% or even basic higher-earners. Maybe I’m missing something, can you point some examples out to me?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
2:18 pm
“As a politician he claims raising taxes would lead to job loss but as a businessman, he refused to say he would lay off employees if his taxes were increased.”
Yeah, let’s make a business decision based on an increase that hasn’t been voted on, in a bill that hasn’t been written, and then let’s announce it on a national news show during an interview.
At some point, John, do you EVER stop to think?
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
2:21 pm
”It turns out that the Clinton years were an anomaly in modern tax history.”
Another anomaly in the Clinton years was that spending was relatively low and even sometimes less than revenues. Revenues steadily increased (albeit largely due to dot-com bubble) while spending steadily decreased.
Revenues %GDP Outlays %GDP
1992 17.5 22.1
1993 17.5 21.4
1994 18.0 21.0
1995 18.4 20.6
1996 18.8 20.2
1997 19.2 19.5
1998 19.9 19.1
1999 19.8 18.5
2000 20.6 18.2
I will gladly support a return to the Clinton tax code of 2000 *for everyone* right when we limit spending to that 18.2% level as well.
2
John
September 20th, 2011
2:24 pm
MPercy
“Please define “fair share”.”
They could pay based on the percentage of wealth owned. If the top 1% owns 85% of all the wealth in the US, they should pay 85% of all taxes collected.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 20th, 2011
2:24 pm
Most of the special tax breaks go to the middle class–they’re phased out for the eeeeeeevil rich.
Time to sacrifice your special tax breaks, hypocrites.
Will
September 20th, 2011
2:25 pm
I am asking seriously if someone can tell me what “My Fair Share” is or should be if my family makes $120,000/yr?
I am serious here…
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
2:25 pm
Think the rich don’t provide jobs? Or that they only provide a few jobs through their investment activities? People with a lot of money spend a lot of money on stuff and services that the many of the rest of us provide!
One example…
Once upon a time we had a thriving yacht-building business in the US. Congress decided that a luxury tax on yachts sounded like a great idea! Tax the rich fat cats splurging millions on yachts, what’s a few hundred thou in extra taxes?! 10% extra tax on boats costing $100K or more (this was in 1990 or so).
The end result was devastating. Thousands in the boating industry lost their jobs (as did thousands in other industries penalized with similar luxury taxes). The rich? They just bought their yachts overseas and avoided the taxes. There is virtually no yacht building or sales left in the US as a result of this tax, even after it was repealed–those jobs were killed but good!
[Walter Williams]
“Within eight months after the change in the law took effect, Viking Yachts, the largest U.S. yacht manufacturer, laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants. Before it was all over, Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees. In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and according to a report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the industry lost 7,600 jobs. When it was over, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material. Ocean Yachts trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts went from 200 employees to five and later filed for bankruptcy. The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. companies closed. Jobs shifted to companies in Europe and the Bahamas. The U.S. Treasury collected zero revenue from the sales driven overseas.
Back then, Congress told us that the luxury tax on boats, aircraft and jewelry would raise $31 million in revenue a year. Instead, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing and 1,470 in the aircraft industry, in addition to the thousands destroyed in the yacht industry. Those job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. The net effect of the luxury tax was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means Congress’ projection was off by $38.6 million. The Joint Economic Committee concluded that the value of jobs lost in just the first six months of the luxury tax was $159.6 million.”
Keep this in mind when you realize that Pres. Obama has called for a luxury tax on corporate jets, and remember that a goodly number of corporate jets are built in the United States (Gulfstream, Cessna). How many people will lose their jobs as a result? How much revenue will be generated? We’ve seen this movie before…the remake won’t end differently.
HDB
September 20th, 2011
2:27 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
1:56 pm
To counter yur previous:
“I do not care what was said in the middle of a live interview.”
I’ve always been taught that the TRUTH comes out in the first thought….so whatever was said by the Congressman was what he thought was the truth. Since the context isn’t clarified by the Congressman, we must accept his statement on face value.
“Unlike most of you people on here, I can personally state that speaking on live TV and in front of crowds of dozens, if not hundreds of people is a daunting experience for even the pros.” Can agree with that from MY personal experiences (multiple)…..however, the Congressman should’ve been prepared to clarify his statement if he feared his context wouldn’t be understood at face value!
“And unlike many of you, I do not harp on one word in a collection of statements in order to play gotcha with the other side.” Not just one word…but the series of words which make the complete statement. If we do’t harp on the Congressman’s statement, how can we make informed decisions as constituents??
“Only the truly delusional out there would believe that a Congressman with a family of 6 would be spending $200,000 on food in one year’s time. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the Congressman was speaking of ALL his annual expenses, and not that of just his family’s meals.” It’s not delusional to take the statement at face value….but let’s expand upon that; isn’t it feasible that those of wealth DO spend exorbitant amounts in support of their lifestyle? $200K out of an income on $6M equals .0333333%…..whereas many in this nation spend over 20% to feed themselves!!
“But logic and intelligence is largely lost on the liberal mind, and usually on the fringes of both sides of the aisle.”
Let’s fix that…..”logic and intelligence is largely lost on the conservative mind in the desire to maintain the status quo while simultaneously suppressing the desires of the preponderance of the nation!”
Kyle Wingnut
September 20th, 2011
2:28 pm
From a real conservative who actually doesn’t lie to keep the base happy……
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229574/goodbye-supply-side-kevin-d-williamson
John
September 20th, 2011
2:29 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
That’s their claim…yet he will not stand by his own claim. Didn’t we see businesses making claims well before Obamacare was written and voted on? Don’t businesses spend huge amounts of money on lobbyist and political ads making claims before things are passed? Why is this, all of a sudden, a new concept to you?
At some point, Tiberius, do you EVER stop to think or do research before making your claims?
HDB
September 20th, 2011
2:30 pm
excuse me….3.33333% (forgot to move the decimal point!)
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
2:32 pm
“Let’s fix that…..”logic and intelligence is largely lost on the conservative mind in the desire to maintain the status quo while simultaneously suppressing the desires of the preponderance of the nation!”
Let’s see . . . the “desires of the preponderance of the nation” just recently booted out the ruling party in favor of an alternative point of view in 2010 in the biggest electoral shift since the 1920’s, so what exactly do you mean by your provably inaccurate statement, HDB? See, hyperbole doesn’t work when one has facts to deal with.
And just what “status quo” is being maintained when the party in power right now wishes to reverse the deficit spending habits of the past 35 years?
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
2:35 pm
“They could pay based on the percentage of wealth owned. If the top 1% owns 85% of all the wealth in the US, they should pay 85% of all taxes collected.”
1. To tax wealth in the US requires a change in the Constitution. Only capitation and income taxes are allowed.
2. Taxing wealth depletes the wealth, which is probably your goal, but will end up reducing the available revenue stream.
But at least it was an answer.
In 2006, the top 1% paid 27.6% of federal taxes having earned 18.8% of the pre-tax income (CBO data). Did they pay their “fair share”?
FYI, according to Edward Wolff, the New York University economist and an expert on U.S. wealth statistics “the top 1% held 34.6% of all national wealth in 2007. By Dec. 31, 2009, they held 35.6%.”
And note that if the top 1% paid 27% of federal taxes vs 19% of income earned and 36% of wealth held…those numbers are in the ballpark, whereas your 85% number is in left field. If you’re going to toss off hypothetical numbers, at least make them somewhat realistic.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
2:37 pm
“Didn’t we see businesses making claims well before Obamacare was written and voted on?”
Yes, we did. In PREPARED statements based on prepared statistical analysis, not live interviews.
“Don’t businesses spend huge amounts of money on lobbyist and political ads making claims before things are passed?”
See above.
“Why is this, all of a sudden, a new concept to you?”
It’s not. It is, apparently, a concept lost on you however.
John
September 20th, 2011
2:50 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
He’s been making these claims that tax increase will destroy jobs. Do you think he and the rest of the Republicans have statistical analysis to back their claims? Or are they just pulling it out of thin air? Or are you going to claim they have analysis but they completely freeze on live interviews which they give all the time? Are you going to make the same argument for all Democrats and all Republicans for every bad answer during an interview?
Does that apply to Sarah Palin’s response that she reads all of them when asked what magazines she reads? Or Nancy Pelosi saying we need to vote on the bill to find out what’s in it? Or Romney saying corporations are people? Or the several gaffes made by Michelle Bachman?
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
2:52 pm
MarkV @11:34 am “The evidence that the rich do not pay the fair share is that their after-tax income has been growing at a faster rate than that of the middle class.”
So what? My income is rising faster than my brother’s, too. We had the same parents, same home environment, are only 2 years apart, so we went to the same schools at pretty much the same time and had pretty much the same set of teachers. We’re both healthy, engaged in sports (he played football, I ran track) in school, etc. There’s no good reason why we should be dramatically different in terms of income.
Except that my brother was a bit of a slacker in school, whereas I excelled. He chose to become a school teacher, I chose to become an engineer. He married a school teacher and had kids. I married an IT professional who quickly moved into a VP slot with a Fortune 500 company and have not had children. My personal income has more than quadrupled in the last 15 years, his has gone up somewhat as he gains seniority. Our combined income puts us in the top 2% (and a target of Mr. Obama), their combined income puts them in squarely in the middle-class.
The tax code is not what created this “unfair” situation, nor was it a difference in environment. It was the decisions he and I made along the line.
John
September 20th, 2011
2:54 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
Guess we can do away with debates, town hall meeting, interviews, ect. Politicians can just release PREPARED statements.
HDB
September 20th, 2011
2:56 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
2:32 pm
The problem is that the “party in power” (Democrats) HAD to inject capital into the economic system to ARREST the fall that REPUBLICANS got us into!! Note: TARP and Bank bailouts were primarily a Repblican idiom!! The stimulus DID work…but Republican propoganda has snowed many of the populace! Provisions of “ObamaCare” were based on REPUBLICAN ideology (Romney’s healthcare bill is Massachussetts)….and many of the provisions ARE desired by the preponderance of the populace (elimination of pre-existing conditions, for one!)
The status quo that is being maintained: The wealthy do not have to sacrifice whereas the preponderance of the nation MUST! If you WANTED to reverse the deficit spending, Republicans should NOT have stated that “deficits don’t matter”!!; Republicans should have embraced a repeal of the Bush tax cuts; Republicans should have embraces “pay-as-you-go”; Republicans should have voted AGAINST the war resolutions!!
THAT’s changing the status quo!!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
2:57 pm
“Do you think he and the rest of the Republicans have statistical analysis to back their claims?”
Quite possibly they do. Not that it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out.
“Are you going to make the same argument for all Democrats and all Republicans for every bad answer during an interview? ”
What part of “I don’t take one word and blow it out of proportion for either side” do you NOT understand, John?
Once again, do you actually READ what is posted, or do you just make up things in order to create an argument for the sake of arguing?
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
2:59 pm
Jefferson @12:01 pm “The tax increases proposed by the president hurts no one and is benificial to debt reduction. It is just one of the sacrifies needed that were caused by the runaway budgets between 2000 and 2008. Cuts in spending will follow.”
No. We’ve played that game way too many times. The cuts never follow. How about this time we cut first, then after the cuts have been proven rather than promised, we talk about increasing taxes.
For example, I will gladly support a return the the Clinton’s tax code circa FY2000, for everyone, one year after we demonstrate having limited spending to the 18.2% of GDP it was in FY2000. Keep it at 18.2% for another year, and I’d be more than happy to talk about redefining carried interest and maybe even a new 38% rate for AGI over $1M.
And so on. But show the real cuts first, not a promise to pay me Tuesday for a hamburger today.
John
September 20th, 2011
3:01 pm
MPercy
To continue with your comparison of you and your brother. If your brother lost his job, lost his health insurance and had a medical emergency in his family, lost his home and is struggling to feed his family…would you help him out seeing you’ve done well for yourself and is in a position to help? Or do you feel that’s his problem and he accept personal responsibility for his situation and take care of it on his own, not accepting help?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
3:03 pm
“Guess we can do away with debates, town hall meeting, interviews, ect. Politicians can just release PREPARED statements.”
You are possibly the most bone-headed poster that has ever lived in cyber-space, John. If you wish to debate like a 2 year-old, the Bookman blog is next door. You’d fit right in there.
What INTELLIGENT people do is LISTEN to what is said, logically and dispassionately EVALUATE what is said, and make a determination whether that person said something believable or not.
Now, if you’re the type of voter who can turn “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska” into “I can see Russia from my house” and vote that way, then please stop voting.
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
3:06 pm
The tax code is available for everyone to use, but certainly some activities require participation in certain activities. For example, you cannot use the offsetting deduction for gambling losses unless a) you’ve got gambling losses and b) you’ve got gambling winnings to offset! You cannot use thed eduction for donating appreciated assets unless a) you donate assets and b) you had appreciation in those assets (i.e., you first had to buy the assets, wait for them to increase in value, then donate them). Certainly it is easier for high-income earners to have the wherewithal to donate appreciated assets, but it is not the case that *only* high-income can use this deduction.
I am reminded of the classic Steve Martin bit…
You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. “Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes?” First.. get a million dollars.
John
September 20th, 2011
3:14 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
“Quite possibly they do. Not that it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out.”
I’m sure they don’t. As soon as Obama or any Democrats open their mouths on anything, the Republican response is “job killing” including their own ideas. Obama Cares is jobs killing even though it’s modeled after Romneycare and was first introduced by Republicans during the Clinton administration. Bailouts are “job killing” even though the bailouts were started by Bush…John Boner cried (not unusual) on the House floor begging for it’s passage. Every government is “jobs killing” according to Republicans. The only thing Republicans seems to think is not “jobs killing” is tax reduction.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
3:18 pm
So much insanity.
“The problem is that the “party in power” (Democrats) HAD to inject capital into the economic system to ARREST the fall that REPUBLICANS got us into!!”
No, they didn’t. The government has been artificially propping up prices and incomes when it should have been allowing them to drop when times are bad. Government policies have priced us out of the global manufacturing market. In addition, it was liberal policies over the past 35 years that got us into this mess.
“Note: TARP and Bank bailouts were primarily a Repblican idiom!!”
No, they we equally both the fault of Democrats and Republicans. And they didn’t punish the people who messed up investments; they rewarded them by bailing them out.
“The stimulus DID work…but Republican propoganda has snowed many of the populace!”
The reality is that the stimulus didn’t work as planned (unless you were like me who knew how bad it was going to be), in that it only slowed our decline rather than reversed it and added mounds of debt to our country we ca no longer afford
“Provisions of “ObamaCare” were based on REPUBLICAN ideology (Romney’s healthcare bill is Massachussetts)….and many of the provisions ARE desired by the preponderance of the populace (elimination of pre-existing conditions, for one!)”
And of course, Romney himself says that it isn’t based on his state’s plan.
“The wealthy do not have to sacrifice whereas the preponderance of the nation MUST!”
I guess if the wealthy continues to pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country, then they aren’t sacrificing at all.
“If you WANTED to reverse the deficit spending, Republicans should NOT have stated that “deficits don’t matter”!!;”
Uh, HDB? “Republicans” didn’t say that. Dick Cheney said that in a discussion about ELECTORAL POLITICS in the 1980’s. No one has ever said that deficits don’t matter in a fiscal sense. No one.
Republicans should have embraced a repeal of the Bush tax cuts;”
No.
“Republicans should have embraces “pay-as-you-go”;”
Yes.
“Republicans should have voted AGAINST the war resolutions!!”
Yes. As should Democrats.
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
3:20 pm
Tiberius @1:59 pm: “From each according to his ability” = The rich can afford to be taxed more. “To each according to his needs” = Funding social programs and entitlements.“ Please tell me how this doesn’t equate to what you and your liberal buddies on this blog advocate on a daily basis, and then tell me I don’t understand the philosophy”
Glad to oblige. You do not understand the philosophy. Why don’t you learn something first, before you start using labels and mottos, the meaning of which you are not familiar with?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
3:22 pm
“Obama Cares is jobs killing even though it’s modeled after Romneycare and was first introduced by Republicans during the Clinton administration.”
Neither of your assertions above are true. Try facts next time.
John
September 20th, 2011
3:23 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
“What INTELLIGENT people do is LISTEN to what is said, logically and dispassionately EVALUATE what is said, and make a determination whether that person said something believable or not.”
No, what INTELLIGENT people do is LISTEN to what is said and RESEARCH and find the facts in order to EVALUATE what is said is the truth. We don’t have to look far to see the FACTS. Bill Clinton raised taxes and during his administration and 23 million jobs were created. George Bush reduced taxes and only 3 million jobs were added. Those are the FACTS. Of course, tax policy alone doesn’t increase or decrease jobs but to say raising taxes reduces jobs, which is what the Republicans claim has proven to be false.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
3:23 pm
“Glad to oblige. You do not understand the philosophy.”
That is your statement of opinion, and not backed up with factual data.
Try again.
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
3:24 pm
John @3:01 pm
Good question, and one which has real-world implications. I have already assisted my brother in such circumstances. I also assisted my brother-in-law’s family during a transitional time (so we had them, including a 2-year-old kid, living with us). My 70+ mother-in-law has lived with us for several years. We also give thousands to charity every year, and my wife likes to do Habitat for Humanity.
Now, we did/do all this because it’s our moral understanding as a requirement. Having the government point a figurative and literal gun at our heads and force me to do the same for people I don’t know is a different question altogether.
I believe that I have absolutely no right to force you or anyone else to provide for my wants and needs; I likewise think that you have absolutely no right to force me to provide for your wants and needs. However, I believe that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow human beings and should do so voluntarily. If there is to be a punishment for my failure to heed my obligations, it is not the bailiwick of you or anyone else (government) to mete out that punishment.
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
3:26 pm
John @3:01
So yeah, I believe I have a right to not help my brother, even though I’ve chosen not to exercise the right.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
3:27 pm
“Bill Clinton raised taxes and during his administration and 23 million jobs were created. George Bush reduced taxes and only 3 million jobs were added. Those are the FACTS.”
Those are conclusions without analysis, not facts.
“Of course, tax policy alone doesn’t increase or decrease jobs”
Yet you use those conclusions and call them facts.
“but to say raising taxes reduces jobs, which is what the Republicans claim has proven to be false.”
No, it has not in this type of economy.
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
3:29 pm
MPercy @2:52 pm
Unfortunately, your example has nothing to do with what the question of a fair share of tax burden. The people in the upper tax brackets are not the only people who create wealth. A CEO of a company would create nothing if there were no people in the lower tax brackets working in the factories, in the fields, in services, etc. They all together create wealth. It then becomes a question of how the wealth is distributed. Nobody would argue that those people who are in more responsible position, or had better ideas, etc., should not be paid more than people on the lower steps of the ladder. But there is no rational reason why some of the people creating wealth should earn more and more while the other group should lag behind.
John
September 20th, 2011
3:30 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
“Neither of your assertions above are true. Try facts next time.”
Where did, for instance, the individual mandate originate from? Even Newt Gingrigh admits it’s from Republican proposals. He also has said when Republican proposed it, they weren’t concerned with the Constitution enough to evaluate whether it was Constitutional or not.
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
3:32 pm
John @3:01
It is also worth noting that in these cases, my support was predicated on the notion that I was *helping* not *enabling*. My brother hit a bump in the road, and I helped out because I knew it was just that, a bump in the road, and not a lifestyle choice.
If he couldn’t pay the mortgage because he gambled the money away *again* I doubt I would give or even loan him the money, despite the impact it might have on his wife & kids. I’d probably move her and the kids into my house and lock him out until he was straightened out.
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
3:37 pm
Tiberius @3:23 pm @ “That is your statement of opinion, and not backed up with factual data.”
It was a statement backed up with what you have written – a nonsense of comparing a safety net in a capitalist society with the communist motto.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
3:39 pm
Here’s YOUR original statement, John.
“Obama Cares is jobs killing even though it’s modeled after Romneycare and was first introduced by Republicans during the Clinton administration.”
Here’s your amended statement:
“Where did, for instance, the individual mandate originate from? Even Newt Gingrigh admits it’s from Republican proposals.”
So, I see you are now back-pedaling from your original statement that the entire 2,300 page bill “Obama Cares . . . was first introduced by Republicans”, to a single portion of that bill “the individual mandate”.
You really need to argue less, and think more, John.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
3:46 pm
I’ll repeat, MarkV:
“From each according to his ability” = The rich can afford to be taxed more.
“To each according to his needs” = Funding social programs and entitlements.“
Please tell me how this doesn’t equate to what you and your liberal buddies on this blog advocate on a daily basis, and then tell me I don’t understand the philosophy.
Is not the advocating of taking more from the wealthy a government-mandated “From each according to his ability”? Of course it is.
And is not giving that money “to each according to his needs” not advocating the government-mandated creation / continuation / expansion of our social safety net? Are the people you and other libs wanting to catch in that net not needy?
Do you even understand the English language, MarkV?
John
September 20th, 2011
3:47 pm
MPercy
“It is also worth noting that in these cases, my support was predicated on the notion that I was *helping* not *enabling*. My brother hit a bump in the road, and I helped out because I knew it was just that, a bump in the road, and not a lifestyle choice. ”
That’s part of the problem. Conservatives paint a picture that people are homeless, have lost their jobs and receiving UI or are receiving any type of assistance via social programs is a lifestyle choice. Conservatives believe everyone should have personal responsibility and take care of themselves. It’s not that simple.
Strange thing though…while Conservative hold these beliefs, the top Republican presidential candidate is having problems with forest fires in his state…a state of emergency. He is looking to the federal government for financial assistance while Republicans in Washington are resisting providing money to FEMA to help out the states. He claims he believes in smaller government and personal responsibility but then runs to Washington with his hands out looking for money.
fair and imbalanced
September 20th, 2011
3:47 pm
liberals bad..tea party good
John
September 20th, 2011
3:52 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
I’m not back pedaling. It is modeled after Republican plans. But there is one big difference between his plan and say, Medicare Part D passed by Republicans and signed into law by Bush…he has provisions to pay for it. Notice how Republicans want to blame Democrats for the deficit but Republican have been know to pass spending bills with no way to pay for it. Also noticed at the Tea Party debate while every candidate called for repealing Obamacare, when asked not a single one supported repealing Medicare Part D even though it will add more to the deficit than Obamacare.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
4:04 pm
“I’m not back pedaling.”
Actually, you are.
“It is modeled after Republican plans.”
No, some Republican initiatives were built into it, but there was never any Republican “plan” that ever looked remotely like the abortion known as Obamacare.
“But there is one big difference between his plan and say, Medicare Part D passed by Republicans and signed into law by Bush”
Don’t you mean that was passed by both Democrats AND Republicans, John?”
…he has provisions to pay for it.”
No, he doesn’t. A new independent analysis AND your beloved CBO both show that Obamacare will end up increasing the deficit by over $80 billion per year due to double-counting savings in one side as income in another.
“Notice how Republicans want to blame Democrats for the deficit but Republican have been know to pass spending bills with no way to pay for it.”
Actually, many Republicans have admitted their complicity in increasing the deficit and debt in the past. But their blame of Democrats in the 2006-2010 years is certainly valid, as is your criticism of the GOP.
“Also noticed at the Tea Party debate while every candidate called for repealing Obamacare, when asked not a single one supported repealing Medicare Part D even though it will add more to the deficit than Obamacare.”
And . . . ? I might point out to you that this is an election season, and making blanket statements and admissions as you would like the GOP candidates to do would certainly open them up to direct criticism from you if they did. So which is it? Do you want them to get rid of it, or are you just cheesed off that you can’t rail against them for not wanting to get rid of it?
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
4:06 pm
John @3:47
Which is one reason I have not voted for a Republican in a very long time.
You’re right, it’s not that simple. Certainly not *all* people who are homeless, etc. are in a lifestyle choice. But the government makes no distinction between those who are and those who aren’t, whereas individuals and private charities can and do.
Our Government is a classic enabler and progressive liberals are codependent. An enabler is a person who by their actions make it easier for an addict to continue their self-destructive behavior by rescuing the addict. The codependent party exhibits behavior that controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party’s condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.
Personally, I would be ok with it if the government for example provided a lowest-possible-backstop to prevent someone from starving to death. But an EBT card that can be swiped at McDs for a Big Mac and fries is not the same thing; I’m thinking more like a 10lb bag of rice, 10lb bag of beans, and a bottle of multi-vitamins (adjust as needed for # people and time period covered). I.e., you won’t starve or be malnourished, but you won’t be too happy about your diet either. You want chips & beer? Get a job.
When the CBO puts out studies showing how a large number of “poverty” households own cars, big screen TVs with cable, playstation with high-speed broadband, etc. that doesn’t jibe with my vision of people who need my assistance.
Government assistance should never be something that exists to allow you to maintain the lifestyle to which you may have become accustomed.
a reader
September 20th, 2011
4:10 pm
the problem is media stoking the flame wars. of course rich want to be richer and everybody wants more money in their pocket. but the whole politic game is dumbed down by the media as some sort of football match – one side against the other. life ain’t that simple. people need to somehow get a better look at themselves and actually hear the dumb sh!t that spills out of their gourds as what they think they believe that some media boob pooped into it. sometimes government does good work – for both sides of the dollar. give and take is how it’s worked thus far.
Get Real
September 20th, 2011
4:13 pm
Punish the Achievers….I will never understand the progressive entitlement mindset…
John
September 20th, 2011
4:14 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
What INTELLIGENT people do is LISTEN to what is said, logically and dispassionately EVALUATE what is said, and make a determination whether that person said something believable or not.
That’s the problem and not what INTELLIGENT people do. Remember the story about Obama’s trip to India?
The Drudge Report — a news aggregation website — linked to the Press Trust of India article, with the headline “REPORT: US to spend $200 million per day on Obama’s Mumbai visit…” Later that day, Rush Limbaugh claimed on his radio show that “Five hundred seven rooms at the Taj Mahal, 40 airplanes, $200 million a day this nation will spend on Obama’s trip to India.” He repeats the “$200 million a day” claim several times throughout the show without specifying its source.
The allegation has generated a great deal of Internet discourse over the past few days, including a Washington Times post that claims Obama’s entourage on the trip “will spend enough to bankrupt a small nation.” According to the Economic Times and The Daily Mail, Obama will take over the entire 570-room Taj Mahal Hotel for the trip.
Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota repeated the claim Nov. 3 on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” attacking Obama for “over-the-top spending.” When Cooper countered that “no one really knows the cost, because for security reasons they don’t disclose the cost,” Bachmann responded, “Well these are the numbers that have been coming out in the press.”