Shocker! Those Who Agree with “Spread the Wealth” Aren’t The Ones Who Would Have to Spread Their Wealth
This Hot Air post set me to giggling, particularly the part that linked to findings from the latest Rasmussen poll:
A majority of those who earn less than $40,000 a year agree with Obama about spreading the wealth around, while most of those who earn more than that disagree…
Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters under 30 agree with Obama’s statement while 33% disagree. A plurality of those over 30 take the opposite view.
I guess if you aren’t going to be expected to pay for giveaways, they sound pretty good, don’t they?
The Alien Patriot:
Well I guess according to Biden, most people who make more than $40,000 or are over 30 have to be considered un-patriotic then.
TAP
20 October 2008, 2:54 amPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Let’s see…
20 October 2008, 3:35 amSharon:
So, people making less than $40k a year aren’t just being greedy, but actually want “social cohesion,” eh? Guess that’s why socialism works so well around the world that Europe is moving to the right.
20 October 2008, 5:39 amYorkshire:
Interesting little article there. Not surprising in any way shape or form. I guess the lessons learned at Yellowstone NP aren’t heeded. You feed the bears, they become dependent. But, if you want more of it, you subsidize it, you want less of it, you tax it.
JTP was right, if you don’t want rich people or prosperity, you tax it, you want dependent people, you just give them a check.
20 October 2008, 7:21 amArt Downs:
How ‘charitable’ is the Kennedy family with its offshore tax shelters?
Does anyone remember the charitable contributions of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and those of Al Gore? Liberals are typically generous with other people’s money.
20 October 2008, 12:06 pmmike g:
Tax money going to what I want = necessary. Tax money going to things I don’t want = Socialism.
This is what it means to be a Republican in 2009.
20 October 2008, 1:12 pmSharon:
Tax money going for things I support = fair. Cutting taxes so people keep their own money = greed.
This is what it means to be a Democrat in 2009.
20 October 2008, 2:09 pmYorkshire:
Tax money going for things that just buy votes = don’t question me. Cutting taxes so people can hire more people = no, we know how to use your money more than you.
That’s what it means to be a Liberal in 2009
20 October 2008, 2:55 pmDavid:
“Shocker! Those Who Agree with “Spread the Wealth” Aren’t The Ones Who Would Have to Spread Their Wealth”
So….95 percent of the country under Obama?
20 October 2008, 3:11 pmSharon:
Um, no, David. Only the willfully naive actually believe Obama plans to raise taxes on 5% of the country. I already put up a post about how Obama will use the EPA to tax the hell out of anyone who uses fossil fuels, which includes lil ol’ you and me and the kid mowing lawns for video game money.
The bite of Obama’s tax plan kicks in around $40k, where it becomes inefficient to work harder or work overtime to make extra when you can sit on your butt waiting for the government to hand you someone else’s money.
20 October 2008, 3:17 pmYorkshire:
Those who believe that 95% of the taxpayers, people, families (or whatever the group represents this week) are getting a tax cut, or not have their taxes raised, are in for a very rude awakening. Right off BO wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts to take us back to what Bubba had for rates. Guess what, more than 5% of the group of the week will see their taxes go up. If you can’t see that, you have been listening. More than once BO has said the Bush Tax Cuts go, and the tax rates of 1999 go into effect.
20 October 2008, 3:20 pmmike g:
Yorkshire> Bubba’s tax rates? You mean back when we had a budget surplus?
Sharon> Why do you hate the troops so much? Taxes pay for the necessary equipment they need to stay alive. American soldiers are dying and here sit saying that citizens who benefit from the very freedoms they’re defending should be able to withhold funding from them? What a disgrace you all are!
20 October 2008, 3:49 pmDavid:
“I already put up a post about how Obama will use the EPA to tax the hell out of anyone who uses fossil fuels”
I’m sorry, but I don’t consider regulating carbon emissions to be in the same category as regular taxation, besides the fact that your source is both opinion and speculation. We don’t really know how either Obama or McCain will ultimately handle that issue if elected, be it a cap and trade system or raising fossil fuel taxes.
“The bite of Obama’s tax plan kicks in around $40k, where it becomes inefficient to work harder or work overtime to make extra when you can sit on your butt waiting for the government to hand you someone else’s money.”
What is your basis for thinking this? This doesn’t make any sense at all to me. I don’t think many people actually contemplate their tax bracket when deciding whether or not to take a promotion. I think this is one of those ideologies that sounds okay on its face, but doesn’t actually happen in any provable way. If you have something to back that up I would sincerely be interested in reading it.
20 October 2008, 3:55 pmDavid:
“Guess what, more than 5% of the group of the week will see their taxes go up. If you can’t see that, you have(n’t) been listening”
I think you need to either change the word “listening” to “speculating”, or define who it is we are supposed to be listening to. I hope you don’t think the conservative echo chamber is what I’m supposed to listen to.
My snarky comment aside, I do think more than 5% will see an increase, I don’t think it will be a full frontal assault on the middle class like you guys seem to.
20 October 2008, 4:02 pmmike g:
Ok, Sharon, I’ll make it easy on you. What percentage do tax rates have to be before they’re considered socialist?
I mean, it’s you who frequently employs the term to describe Obama’s tax plan/agenda so I’d like for you to go ahead and elaborate on what you mean.
20 October 2008, 5:45 pmYorkshire:
Yorkshire> Bubba’s tax rates? You mean back when we had a budget surplus?
Mike, I remember having this discussion on the old ABC Boards and in our email group. The question was did Bubba really have a surplus, or a phantom surplus. If you go back and look at the public debt charts, it was a phantom one.
Back in the 60’s when LBJ was running his guns and butter programs he needed more money. Instead of raising taxes, or cut spending, he just got Congress to meld the general taxation fund with the SS Payroll taxes. Voila, instant big bucks.
Fast forward to 2000 and this fraud was still being used in the shell game of the budget. If you take the SS Payroll taxes from the total amount, in 2000 there was still a deficit of the General Fund. It was just the blue smoke and mirror gimmick of using the IOU’s from the Payroll tax that produced a phantom surplus. If you check through the Bureau of Public Debt, there is not a year when the deficit went down.
You can say Bubba had a surplus in a gimmick sense, but the general taxation fund has never run a surplus. It’s just another old wives tale told over and over and over, and because of that, gee, it must really be true, but it’s not.
20 October 2008, 6:16 pmSharon:
Sharon> Why do you hate the troops so much? Taxes pay for the necessary equipment they need to stay alive. American soldiers are dying and here sit saying that citizens who benefit from the very freedoms they’re defending should be able to withhold funding from them? What a disgrace you all are!
Why do you argue in such a disingenuous fashion, Mike? Is it because there is no honest argument you can make to support your ideas?
I have no problem with Obama spending money already in our budget on military equipment and armor for the troops. Again, as with roadwork, supporting the military is a normal, traditional function of government.
But our Founding Fathers would not have supported the notion that we should engage in wholesale wealth transfer from wealthy individuals to less-wealthy (certainly not poor) individuals. That free healthcare, cash handouts, college tuition gimmes, etc. are becoming “rights” which we must pay for with taxpayer funds is as close to the socialized systems of Europe that we’ve ever had.
And Mike, socialism has as its goal the nationalization of forms of production. We’ve already had Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize the oil companies if the price of gasoline wasn’t to her liking. And regulating whole industries is as close as we’ve come so far.
The government should be involved with activities which only government can do: roads, military affairs, foreign affairs, trade, etc. College education for my children is not a problem that the federal government needs to solve.
BTW, Mike, I’ve asked the question of liberals (including you, I believe) what percentage of income is enough? I’ve never gotten a straight answer.
20 October 2008, 6:26 pmYorkshire:
“I think you need to either change the word “listening” to “speculating”, or define who it is we are supposed to be listening to. I hope you don’t think the conservative echo chamber is what I’m supposed to listen to.”
Just listen to BO. If you listen closely, there are always miniscule differences to the message. It may sound the same, but it’s not.
Along the campaign, BO has let it be known he plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That affects every taxpayer, and former taxpayers who got dropped when the tax cuts were made. So, it’s fairly well assured 100% of the taxpayers will see an increase.
And in the last debate, or the one before it, BO said of the 95%, it was 95% of the people, then he said 95% of the taxpayers. That is two very large groups. 95% of 300,000,000, or is it 95% of about 125,000,000 (my guess). I don’t know, he keeps changing the parameters.
20 October 2008, 7:42 pmmike g:
Sharon> so you disregard the preamble to the Constitution? Because your idea of socialism seems to confirm comment #6. Money going to make sure that your dear old pappy got a hefty pension is an appropriate use of tax dollars but money going to Pell Grants is a waste.
And this carping on about regulation sounds a little pathetic considering the events we’ve recently witnessed over the past year. We’ve seen what happens when investment banks and mortgage brokers get the free-market nirvana they work so hard to achieve.
20 October 2008, 7:47 pmmike g:
BTW, Mike, I’ve asked the question of liberals (including you, I believe) what percentage of income is enough? I’ve never gotten a straight answer.
Is that your way of saying “I asked you first?”
20 October 2008, 7:48 pmmike g:
Yorkshire> The last time we saw robust economic growth taxes were higher than they are now. From 1994 to 2000 taxes averaged 19.4 percent of GDP, and hit 20 percent or more three times — and we saw a strong economy with income and job growth. This was under the dreaded Clinton tax scheme. Taxes as a share of GDP are going to drop to around 16% in 2008, down from 20.9 percent in 2000. Looking at the current state of our economy along with the preceding seven years of weak growth is indictment enough of these historically low levels of taxation as an economic strategy. If you have some numbers to point to that show a dramatic increase in corporate reinvestment or a booming GDP outside of the state sector of the economy (and that includes what Sharon deems necessary; billions going to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc.) I’d like to see them.
20 October 2008, 8:07 pmYorkshire:
Yorkshire> The last time we saw robust economic growth taxes were higher than they are now. From 1994 to 2000 taxes averaged 19.4 percent of GDP, and hit 20 percent or more three times — and we saw a strong economy with income and job growth. This was under the dreaded Clinton tax scheme. Taxes as a share of GDP are going to drop to around 16% in 2008, down from 20.9 percent in 2000. Looking at the current state of our economy along with the preceding seven years of weak growth is indictment enough of these historically low levels of taxation as an economic strategy. If you have some numbers to point to that show a dramatic increase in corporate reinvestment or a booming GDP outside of the state sector of the economy (and that includes what Sharon deems necessary; billions going to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc.) I’d like to see them.
Mike, thanks for an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. Above you said we had a surplus in the budget. And my explanation is it was a phantom one for the reasons I stated.
20 October 2008, 8:15 pmDana Pico:
Mr Ganzeveld wrote:
Then, obviously, if we have a 100% rate of taxation, prosperity should run wild, right?
There were, of course, some problems with the GDP growth in the 1990s: it counted phantom prosperity of corporations like Enron, which “made” money out of thin air. The NASDAQ topped out over 5,000, based on a heavy concentration of vaporware products that finally caught up to it. Even when the Dow hit its highest point ever, last July, the NASDAQ was only about half of its 1990s high because the vaporware companies were gone.
The real answer is that we should not spend more than the public are willing to pay in taxes.
20 October 2008, 9:40 pmDana Pico:
My bright line of demarcation would be very simple: if the money is spent on a genuinely public purpose, such as building a road (something that everyone can use), the spending passes the first test; other tests should include whether it is a wise use of public funds.
But if the spending is in any way in the form of a transfer payment — a check written to an individual for something other than a legitimate wage or services or products rendered — it is automatically illegitimate.
20 October 2008, 9:43 pmDana Pico:
Sharon’s original noted:
While the percentages might be marginally different, that is the same thing we saw in 2004: if your income was below $50,000, you were in a group which gave 55% of its votes to John Kerry and only 44% to George Bush. Fortunately, people earning under $50,000 constituted only 45% of the electorate.
If, on the other hand, your income was greater than $50,000 a year, you were part of a group which gave 56% of your votes to President Bush, and only 43% to Senator Kerry; this group made up 55% of the electorate.
If you look at the more detailed distribution chart, you’ll see that it was a steady progression from the lowest to highest income groups, with a greater percentage of votes going Republican as income rose, with only a slight (1%) hiccup between the $50-$75,000 and $75-$100,000 groups.
If income is at least a rough indicator of productivity, it seems that the more productive you are, the more you believe that you should get to keep more of your own earnings, while the less productive you are — and the more dependent upon government largesse? — the more you support the party which is perceived to be more generous with government handouts.
Fortunately, if we are to believe both the median income numbers and the voter distribution by income statistics, people who depend on government largesse are far less likely to actually vote.
20 October 2008, 9:58 pmDana Pico:
David wrote:
My best guess is that, regardless of which man is elected president, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will be allowed to expire, and nothing else will be done concerning taxes. That will mean a tax increase for everyone, not just the wealthy. If John McCain is elected, he won’t be able to get his tax proposals through a Democratic Congress, and if Barack Obama is elected [shudder!], he won’t even try.
20 October 2008, 10:03 pmSharon:
Sharon> so you disregard the preamble to the Constitution? Because your idea of socialism seems to confirm comment #6. Money going to make sure that your dear old pappy got a hefty pension is an appropriate use of tax dollars but money going to Pell Grants is a waste.
If you can point to any writing by the Founding Fathers which equates free college tuition as “promoting the general welfare” (which is where I assume you are going), then produce it. Otherwise, your claim is just bogus.
As for my father’s pension, I have no problem giving similar benefits to anyone who fights in 3 wars for this country.
So, Mike, how much of their income do “the rich” owe? A percentage will do.
20 October 2008, 10:09 pmDana Pico:
David wrote:
Does it even matter? If the government tries to impose anything to restrict the use of fossil fuels, it will be a cost that is borne by the people.
We use fossil fuels because they are the most affordable, portable and efficient means of generating usable energy our technology has been able to devise; the use of fossil fuels, as a purely economic decision, is the wisest choice. If electric cars had been more efficient all along, we’d have seen a lot of electric cars already on the road, because they’d simply have made better economic choices.
Now we see “hybrids” on the road, but even with hybrids, if you don’t drive a substantial amount every year, they aren’t worth it: you never recoup the initial outlay.
My drive to and from work is 6.8 miles. If I had a plug-in electric car, and ran a 12 gauge wire on a 20 amp breaker out to my driveway, I could easily make it back and forth to work, several times, on a single charge. But that charge would come from, you guessed it, a fossil fuel (coal) fired power plant!
20 October 2008, 10:12 pmDana Pico:
Mr Ganzeveld wrote:
It can be argued that at least dear old pappy paid into a pension system, though Social Security benefits seem very disconnected with what people actually paid into Social Security.
But Pell Grants are simply a transfer payment, the government giving you cash to do something you already want to do, simply because you — or your parents — didn’t make enough money.
I have absolutely no problem at all with people going to college — as long as they pay for it themselves. But the idea that we subsidize some kid to go to college to earn another useless English Literature degree is ridiculous.
20 October 2008, 10:18 pmSharon:
Keep in mind, Dana, that my dad didn’t get his pension because he sat stateside for 21 years. He fought in 3 wars. There’s hardly the same level of commitment to go to college, unless the requirements have changed a lot.
20 October 2008, 10:22 pmmike g:
Sharon> and if you can point to any writing that equates free college tuition with “nationalization of the means of production” I’d like to see it. I’d also like for you to point out who is promising free college tuition. What I could point out are Founding Fathers that were very much against a government that maintained a standing army on the backs of its colonial citizens. Unlike you they understood the principles of causality. I could show you a George Washington that feared “foreign entanglements” that would destroy the experiment in representative government and a Thomas Jefferson that warned of the spurious notion held by most of you of security over individual liberty. I could show you a James Madison that warned of justifying the primary role of Congress as rubber stamp for the continuation and the financing of war. But hey, go ahead and pat yourself on the back for something you didn’t do, I know it’s important to you.
So, Mike, how much of their income do “the rich” owe? A percentage will do.
I asked you first, chubby. I also don’t feel beholden to answer the questions of a habitual liar.
Yorkshire> Look, your point was that the days of Bubba’s taxes were an economic hellscape that so far is true simply because you say it is.
21 October 2008, 9:39 amSharon:
Sharon> and if you can point to any writing that equates free college tuition with “nationalization of the means of production” I’d like to see it. I’d also like for you to point out who is promising free college tuition.
Moving those goalposts again, Ugly? I gave you an example of Democrats wanting to nationalize a means of production: Maxine Waters threatening oil execs.
There are other types of socialism besides simply nationalizing means of production. Creating large government programs designed to make huge percentages of the population dependent on the government is another example. And, mike, if you don’t know what’s in Obama’s tax plan–like the American Opportunity Tax Credit–then don’t blubber and rant at others who do.
As for the rest of your drivel about the Founding Fathers, way to avoid the argument. It would be nice if you actually believed or lived by half of what you spew, but the reality is, you don’t care who has to pay how much in taxes because, somehow, they must “deserve” it. Any jerk who puts “roads” in the same category of need as “college tuition” needs to go back and take his American History 101 again because you obviously flunked the first time around.
And thanks for dodging the question about how much is a fair amount to tax people. I’ll have to start using the line about not feeling it necessary to answer the idiotic questions of liars like you. After all, why should you actually have back up your BS with anything?
21 October 2008, 10:40 ammike g:
Blubbering and ranting indeed.
It’s alright, Sharon, calm down. You don’t have to get nasty! How about this…I’ll post a picture of my beautiful visage if you post a picture of yours. Then we’ll see who the “ugly” one is around here. On a less superficial note, I find your immediate (and sadly predictable) resort to the casting of insults as truly ugly.
Seriously, asking you to explain how providing a college tax credit is socialism isn’t moving the goal posts. It’s asking you to back up your rhetoric. Just like asking any one of you to explain how pumping $700 billion into the financial sector isn’t socialism or pumping nearly half of every tax dollar through the Pentagon which is exactly what you described when you spoke of “Creating large government programs designed to make huge percentages of the population dependent on the government”. You really are doing a very good job of proving my point in comment #6. And why do I not find it suprising that you want to cherry pick the words of the Founding Fathers and call what you disagree with “drivel”? A little less bile and a lot more substance, please.
And how likely do you think it is that Maxine Waters is going to nationalize the oil industry? What percentage of Congress do you think would vote such a measure? Do you think it’s above five percent? One percent? You didn’t give me an example, Sharon, you gave me a red-herring.
And Sharon, your lies have been well documented. That is why I find all of your unctuous preening hard to swallow. You continually asserted that you do not read Iowa Liberal yet you cut and paste passages from my site and then proceed to respond to them WITHOUT LINKING. Then you go on to say that the link is broken. Why should actions like this not call your honesty into question?
21 October 2008, 11:01 amPhoenician in a time of Romans:
There are other types of socialism besides simply nationalizing means of production.
No, there are not.
21 October 2008, 12:01 pmSharon:
Yes, Pho, there is. See Wikipedia:
21 October 2008, 12:10 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
No, it is not. You are (i) relying on Wikipedia for definitions, (ii) not even reading it properly and (iii) confusing social democracy with socialism.
Sharon, has it not occurred to you before that you’re just not very smart? You may think “socialism” is both a floor wax AND a dessert topping, but that doesn’t make it so.
Socialism is the collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Tax-funded welfare is not socialism.
And you are still an idiot.
21 October 2008, 12:39 pmSharon:
Pho, has it ever occurred to you that you are both a jerk and an idiot? And you really don’t read, to boot.
Social democracies combine nationalizing some industries with welfare benefits for citizens. Socialists aren’t merely concerned with controlling the means of production, but in redistributing wealth by governmental controls.
And, frankly, Pho, you really have worn out your welcome here. You are not only the drunken, obnoxous guest who pees on the rug, but you actually think you have the right to rub the host’s nose in it. You need to either clean up your act or go back to Pandagon where your kind thrives.
It’s one thing to disagree with people about politics on their site. It’s another thing to constantly attack the writers as “morons,” “idiots,” “liars,” etc. Try acting like an adult for a change. Most of the writers here–myself excluded–have tried hard to be polite to you, even as you have been a boorish lout in comment thread after thread.
If you want to argue that welfare isn’t a socialist construct, that’s one thing. But stop acting like the Pandagonistas when you’re here.
21 October 2008, 1:26 pmmike g:
No, Sharon, you are completely wrong. It is quite possible for a governmental institution to give an individual a tax credit and not be socialist. Once again you prove my point; you think that money going to projects you deem worthy is quite acceptable yet you reserve the right to castigate projects you feel are unnecessary as socialist. All the term is for you is a perjorative.
How are you not a liar, Sharon? I would say that you have deserved the title. What else would you call it when a person cut and pastes passages from another person’s site and then claims that the link is broken?
21 October 2008, 1:39 pmSharon:
Obama is calling income redistribution “tax cuts.” But you can’t cut taxes for people who don’t pay any taxes in the first place. Thus, we have the “tax credit,” a nice device to give people who haven’t done anything somebody else’s money.
And now you are repeating yourself, Mike, and that argument has already been taken down. Unless, of course, using tax money for typically governmental functions is “projects I like” and giveaways of other people’s money is “projects I don’t like.” If that’s the definition, then I would agree with it. You want to try to compare a Pell Grant to a military pension again?
How are you not a liar, Sharon? I would say that you have deserved the title. What else would you call it when a person cut and pastes passages from another person’s site and then claims that the link is broken?
Well, first, I would never link to your site, if that’s what you’re talking about. But if I said a link was broken and I couldn’t get it to work, then it was, indeed, broken and I couldn’t get it to work. In neither case does it constitute “lying,” although, coming from you, being called a liar is quite a compliment.
21 October 2008, 2:21 pmmike g:
No Sharon, you can keep repeating yourself and flapping those fat gums of yours but a tax credit isn’t socialism just as handing money to Alaska for that “bridge to nowhere” isn’t socialism.
You would never link to our site but you tried to link and it was broken? Wow.
21 October 2008, 3:35 pmDavid:
This conversation is hilarious. I’ll dip my toe in the shark infested waters here.
I’m not sure there is a set definition of socialism that’s universally agreed upon. I do not think what Obama is doing is anywhere near socialism. There is essentially a spectrum ranging a pure capitalistic society, i.e., no rules, regulations, social programs, government intervention in any way, to a pure socialist society, i.e., government controls every aspect of life, economy, with a high level of regulation and intervention.
I think there are very few examples of governments on either end of the spectrum and the United States is somewhere in the middle and it’s highly arguable where in the middle because of the vastly complicated and ranging number of factors. I think Obama’s policies will, in fact, move us slightly more to the socialist end of the spectrum, but we will essentially remain in middle, which in my opinion is a healthy place to be. To call Obama a “socialist” is implying far too much about him to be taken seriously. You can easily argue that he believes in some aspects of socialism, but that does not make him a socialist. In any event, I think think the Scandinavians are doing pretty well for all their evil ways.
21 October 2008, 4:23 pmmike g:
Guess that’s why socialism works so well around the world that Europe is moving to the right. -Sharon
Nicolas “The Conservative” Sarkozy:
In his speech Sarkozy called upon European states to set up sovereign wealth funds to help prop up companies listed on European stock exchanges. Otherwise, he said, there is a danger that tanking stock prices will result in a massive sell-off of European assets to foreigners. “I don’t want European citizens to wake up in a few months and discover that European businesses are now owned in capitals outside of Europe.” He added that the state funds could later sell their stakes at a profit.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,585558,00.html
21 October 2008, 4:46 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Obama is calling income redistribution “tax cuts.” But you can’t cut taxes for people who don’t pay any taxes in the first place.
If FICA is not a tax, then you won’t mind the threshold on it being removed, right?
21 October 2008, 5:03 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
And, frankly, Pho, you really have worn out your welcome here. You are not only the drunken, obnoxous guest who pees on the rug, but you actually think you have the right to rub the host’s nose in it. You need to either clean up your act or go back to Pandagon where your kind thrives.
It’s one thing to disagree with people about politics on their site. It’s another thing to constantly attack the writers as “morons,” “idiots,” “liars,” etc.
I’ll go with what MikeG said to you:
“People like me fuck with you because you’re a cartoon caricature of the Limbaugh ditto-head and it makes you an easy target. It’s fun watching you huff and puff and stomp your feet. If you had a little sense of humor and didn’t take yourself so seriously (like Dana, for instance) you’d get a great deal more respect. As it stands right now you’re a boring, slobering idealogue hell bent on forcing your binary world view on everyone. Try taking a breather once in a while.”
It’s your aggressive ignorance that makes you a target, Sharon. You’re a living proof of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
But I’m glad to see I’m getting under your skin so badly simply by throwing facts around…
21 October 2008, 5:41 pmDana Pico:
Mr Ganzeveld, in comment #31, raised the issue of what the founding fathers wanted. Well, the Framers did not want an income tax at all, but specified that all direct taxes imposed by the federal government would have to be apportioned by population. Thus, Mike Ganzeveld and Art Downs and Dana Pico and Warren Buffet would all be taxed the same dollar amount.
21 October 2008, 6:09 pmYorkshire:
The following is the debt total for each fiscal year back to 1976. There is data to the 1800’s. Note: each fiscal year the debt grew. I wonder how the debt can grow if there was a “surplus.” The only way it was done was by adding in Payroll Tax. This is only based on revenue gained vs revenue spent. And each year the deficit grew.
9/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.40
9/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
9/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
9/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
9/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
9/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
9/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
9/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
9/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
9/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
9/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
9/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
9/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
9/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
9/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
9/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
9/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
9/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
9/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
9/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
9/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
9/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
9/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
9/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
9/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
9/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
9/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
9/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
9/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
9/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
9/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
6/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00
Source: http://www.savingsbonds.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
21 October 2008, 6:22 pmSharon:
But I’m glad to see I’m getting under your skin so badly simply by throwing facts around…
LOL Now that really is funny.
21 October 2008, 6:27 pmDana Pico:
One thing that seems to be a point here, an erroneous one, is that for a country to be socialist, it Must Have Government Ownership Of The Means Of Production. Perhaps that’s what Karl Marx — a mediocre economist and even poorer sociologist — would have thought, but it leaves no room for degree; one privately owned plot of land, and suddenly the whole country would not be socialist.
That definition is far too narrow, and by it, no country is socialist. But as we see increasing government ownership and regulation of enterprises, and increasing government regulation and confiscation of wages and profits, we are certainly moving away from laissez faire capitalism.
Perhaps a better definition, for our times, would be: at what percentage of government control of enterprises, utilities and institutions would we say that socialism has begun? At what rate of taxation can we say that government has gotten so large and confiscatory that it has moved into income redistribution and a socialist mindset?
The power of government to regulate is the power of government to control, and the power of government to control is the end of freedom. If we have a dictatorship here, it will be the end of a road paved with good intentions. We see all kinds of regulations put on smoking these days, regulations coming from do-gooders who want to save us from ourselves.
Here in Pennsylvania, if you owned, say, a concrete plant, and every employee happened to be a smoker, it would still be illegal for any of them to smoke in any office, building, shop or structure at that plant.
The City of Brotherly Love has passed regulations telling restaurants how they can prepare their food, no trans-fat allowed. It’s really none of their business, and the Republic has managed to survive some 232 years without trans-fat being banned, but because there are do-gooders on the city council, people who just know better than us, they think that they have the right to tell people how to cook.
It is clear that the people of the United States never thought that homosexual relationships constituted a marriage, and everywhere that the people had a chance to vote on it — you know: to take a democratic decision — they rejected the notion that same-sex relationships could be considered a legal marriage. Yet, because we have do-gooders, who think that they are somehow wiser than the people, same-sex marriage was imposed, by judicial fiat, on Massachusetts, California and Connecticut.
We are living in an anti-libertarian age, where people seem to believe that they have a right to control the thoughts, the morals, the actions, and the property of others; that I would call socialism.
21 October 2008, 6:27 pmDavid:
“It is clear that the people of the United States never thought that homosexual relationships constituted a marriage, and everywhere that the people had a chance to vote on it — you know: to take a democratic decision”
Dana: One of the things our country’s founders worried about was the “tyranny of the majority”, aka, a majority ruling opinion that may be wrong, yet is forced on everyone else because a majority of the population believes in it.
The judicial branch is one of the safeguards against popular, yet discriminatory beliefs that exist in our regular, non-socialist, democracy. Right now the issues are gay marriage, smoking in public, abortion, but in the past have been issues like civil rights, slavery etc.
I think this is a designed piece of our democracy, not merely a uprising of the socialist/liberal thought-police. Sometimes the judiciary gets it wrong, but it seems to work itself out over time, through political cycles. In light of this, I respectfully think you’re being a little dramatic. If this is how you define socialism, then I think socialism must already be and is historically well within the constructs of our democracy.
21 October 2008, 7:19 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
One thing that seems to be a point here, an erroneous one, is that for a country to be socialist, it Must Have Government Ownership Of The Means Of Production. Perhaps that’s what Karl Marx — a mediocre economist and even poorer sociologist — would have thought, but it leaves no room for degree; one privately owned plot of land, and suddenly the whole country would not be socialist.
Otherwise known as the bifurcation fallacy.
And, no, you are incorrect in your description of the points raised. To be socialist, a policy must advocate collective or government ownership of the means of production or distribution. That every country in the world is a mix of socialist and non-socialist attitudes is perfectly correct.
But people who throw around “socialism!” when faced with the idea of welfare are incorrect. And people who think Obama is a “socialist” are clueless.
21 October 2008, 7:32 pmmike g:
Pho’> I’ve been keeping this one in my pocket for a while because it’s a blast watching Sharon burst at the seems but I find it amazing that it doesn’t occur to her that Sarah Palin meets her definition of a socialist considering the windfall tax she imposed on oil companies in the state of Alaska.
22 October 2008, 9:07 amDana Pico:
The Roman in a time of Visigoths wrote:
That’s too strict a definition for the way the term is used in the United States. For American readers, a policy which accepted the idea that the profits of production and the distribution of income ought to be subject to social control and distribution, even if the enterprise is privately owned, would be considered socialist. That’s a “looser” definition than what you’ll find in a dictionary, but the definition you have used makes the term useless: no country meets it.
22 October 2008, 9:16 amSharon:
Pho’> I’ve been keeping this one in my pocket for a while because it’s a blast watching Sharon burst at the seems but I find it amazing that it doesn’t occur to her that Sarah Palin meets her definition of a socialist considering the windfall tax she imposed on oil companies in the state of Alaska.
Not exactly, mike. The state of Alaska has a philosophy that all natural resources belong to the people of the state, so anyone who extracts those resources has to pay the people. That’s a little different from asking a small business owner to pay more in taxes so someone else gets a tax credit. But I’m sure you’ll slobber on for another comment or two about how they are exactly the same, so go nuts.
22 October 2008, 9:36 amPhoenician in a time of Romans:
That’s too strict a definition for the way the term is used in the United States.
I took it from an American online dictionary.
What you mean is that “American wingnuts are sloppy and don’t know that words mean things.” I hate to point this out to you, Dana, but being proud of your ignorance is not a universal human trait. Or even American.
22 October 2008, 10:42 amSharon:
So, when I use a Wikipedia entry, that’s “ignorant,” but you use a dictionary definition and that makes you smart?
22 October 2008, 10:46 ammike g:
Sharon> so the collective ownership of the state’s resources by the people isn’t socialism? Is this more of your “I would never link to your site but when I tried it was broken” line of reasoning? Or is this simply another rehash of your tired “because I said so” routine.
22 October 2008, 11:03 ammike g:
Come on, Sharon, what should we call “a philosophy that all natural resources belong to the people of the state”?
22 October 2008, 1:11 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
So, when I use a Wikipedia entry, that’s “ignorant,” but you use a dictionary definition and that makes you smart?
When I use an American dictionary definition to show that that’s the way the term is used in the United States, or at least in the sections of it that are functionally literate, it shows a certain nous.
And I believe I called you “not very smart” and “an idiot” in relation to that above. I’m not sure what the reason for that is - the boring answer would be genetics, but I’m leaning to lead in the drinking water as a more entertaining explanation myself.
22 October 2008, 3:16 pmpgwarner:
It is so nice to see phoey has not changed.
23 October 2008, 9:49 pm