John Hitchcock noted this article from a site called Work in Progress, stating that the author had gotten the “vapors” because, surprisingly enough, some people actually like Sarah Palin.
There was an interesting juxtaposition on the Opinion page of today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, noting the same thing. Charles Krauthammer wrote:
Democrats vs. democracy¹
Liberals would rather believe the voters are stupid than actually listen to them.
‘I am not an ideologue,” President Obama protested to Republican House members recently. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.
Compare his 2010 State of the Union to his first address to Congress, a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society – health care, education, and energy.
A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address pledging not to walk away from health-care reform, seeking to turn college education into a federal entitlement, and asking again for cap-and-trade legislation. Plus another stimulus, this time renamed a “jobs bill.”
This being a democracy, don’t Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?
Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: The people are stupid, and Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.
There’s much more at the link, but it’s basically a recitation of how the Democrats in general, and President Obama specifically, thought that the post 2008 election results were an aberration, and that the people who support conservatives and/or the Republican Party are somehow, well, just not very bright.
What caught my eye was this column, on the same page, by Steve Young, a former liberal talk-radio host and the author of “Great Failures of the Extremely Successful:”
The trouble with lefty radio²
Those of you who didn’t know the liberal talk-radio network Air America was actually broadcasting for the past six years shouldn’t start looking for it now. Last month, it filed for bankruptcy (again) and closed its mouths for good.
While liberal talk continues, listeners in many parts of the country can’t hear left-of-center voices without a good helping of Internet. Air America’s talkers had no foothold in the Delaware Valley other than a short, scattered stint on WHAT-AM (1340). Sure, there are some talented progressive talkers, but I challenge you to name one.
There have been assorted explanations for Air America’s failure. It “was undercapitalized and overmanaged,” said Jon Sinton, the network’s first president and COO. “New money came with strings. There was no stability in programming, and weak distribution made it tough to compete.”
Some attribute it to attitude. “Most of liberal talk has been angry and agenda-driven, not entertainment-driven,” said Andy Bloom, program director at WPHT-AM (1210), the broadcast home of conservative talk superstars. “Despite what most liberals think, the truth about Rush Limbaugh and the conservative talkers with large audiences is that they are entertainers first and conservatives second.”
All that may be, but the crux of liberal talk’s inability to match up to right-wing talk isn’t the business plan or the lack of a Limbaugh. It’s a failure to understand its audience.
Ahhh, but what was the failure to understand the audience? Why, it’s that our friends on the left are just too gosh-darned smart:
Before Limbaugh, talk radio was about wanting to know what you think. Today, it’s telling you what you should think. The liberal audience doesn’t work that way; reaching a consensus on the left is like herding cats.
Of course, conservatives and “dittoheads” are just mind-numbed robots, though at least Mr Young doesn’t come out and say that directly. Rather, he’s stating that our friends on the left are just too nuanced and intellectual for a liberal Limbaugh to have any success, and that the best that a liberal talker can do is to use satire.
Trouble is, the successful talkers on the left who do use satire are all doing so from one perspective: that their views and positions are simply settled truth, and those who disagree are just dolts. The Tea Partiers? Reduced to teabaggers — because that has an obscene connotation — but the fact that the Tea Partiers are complaining that we are taxed too much and spend too much is never really addressed, because our friends on the left so often seem to think that the argument is simply settled, and protesting What Should Be Done is a sign of mental laziness. The people who don’t believe we ought to be spending billions — if not trillions — to try to stop global warming are, for our friends on the left, failing to recognize “settled science,” and, with it, the settled questions of What Should Be Done.
Sometimes I wonder if this is why some of them seem so hostile to freedom of speech, at least freedom for speech in opposition to their particular beliefs.
Well, I’m sure that many of them will never understand how we evil Reichwing conservatives can possibly disagree with them, but, you know, that’s the funny thing about our democracy: sometimes, just when you think everyone simply must agree with you, the voters turn around and do something you just don’t expect, or like. It’s early yet, but I’m guessing that our friends on the left are going to get their feelings hurt come this November.
________________________
Update @ 1735: Thanks to Donald Douglas, I found this article:
When somebody’s writing a book about modern-day conservatives, and titling that book “American Taliban…”
Over at DailyKos, Markos Moulitsas posts: “The 2010 Comprehensive Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll of Self-Identified Republicans.”
His lede:
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world. But I found myself making certain claims about Republicans that I didn’t know if they could be backed up. So I thought, “why don’t we ask them directly?” And so, this massive poll, by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans, was born.
See, he started writing the book – title and premise already decided – and then went ahead and did some research. And that research – surprise! – confirmed what Kos already believed!So we’re supposed to…what? Trust this poll? Really?
Believe it or not, the poll kinda makes Republicans look like idiots. Of course, if you hadn’t already arrived at that conclusion yourself, then this is your first-ever foray into good ‘ol American-style partisan political punditry. Welcome! And remember: polls suck, even when done by professional pollsters who cling to their neutrality like my youngest son to his stuffed dragon.
Via Memeorandum.
More: Ann Althouse calls it:
Wonderful anti-Republican PR results. They justify the fears people who are not Republicans have about the Republican Party.
UPDTATE - Kos’ Supposed ‘Non-Partisan’ Pollster a Barking Moonbat
UPDATE II - Did he just call me a demagogue?
It’s just more of the same, only attacking it from a different angle: you shouldn’t pay any attention at all to conservatives, ’cause they’re just a half-step removed from the Taliban, doncha know? While the Jawa Report noted just how “non-partisan” Mr Moulitsas’ pollster was, it only takes a couple of minutes to look at the poll results, as published on the Lost Kos, to see how ridiculous they are:
I must admit, however, that I expected fewer Republicans to back sex ed. Another big surprise:
WOMEN
Are marrigiages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?
Men 13
Equal 76
Not Sure 11Should women work outside the home?
Yes 86
No 4
Not Sure 10Phyllis Schlafly is crying. That looks a lot more enlightened than I expected, likely because the economic reality is that few people can get away with single-income homes. But whatever the reason, on this front, there’s progress. But that’s where the progress ends:
Should contraceptive use be outlawed?
Yes 31
No 56
Not Sure 13Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?
Yes 34
No 48
Not Sure 18Do you consider abortion to be murder?
Yes 76
No 8
Not Sure 16Over a third of Republicans believe the birth control pill is abortion, which explains why nearly a third of them want contraceptive use outlawed. This is so wingnutty, it’s hardly believable. But it’s true, just a bare majority oppose outlawing contraceptives.
What we didn’t ask was whether the 76 percent who consider abortion to be murder would advocate executions for women who have them. Since 91 percent of respondents support the death penalty.
One last question:
Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?
Christ 67
Other 15
Not Sure 18Two-thirds of Republicans assume anyone that is not a Christian is going to hell. It certainly makes it easier for them to dehumanize their enemies, either real or perceived.
Sorry, but a seventh grader could figure out that a supposedly scientific sample which held that women were equal partners in marriage, 76% to 13%, is simply not going to come up with a result that 31% want contraception outlawed, with another 13% unsure; a truly scientific study isn’t going to come up with the answer that only 4% of Republican respondents think women shouldn’t (be allowed to?) work outside the home, and that a third of them think artificial contraception should be outlawed. And if these “self-identified Republicans” are so opposed to artificial contraception, why aren’t we Republicans simply out-breeding the liberals by a huge margin?
The answer is simple: we’re not, because the “scientific sample” is wholly bogus.
You find this kind of propaganda all over the left blogosphere. Our good friend Amanda Marcotte, in her book It’s a Jungle Out There, tried to portray us wicked Reichwing conservatives as radically opposed to birth control, yet the only group she could document in her book was one called Quiverfull. Currently several thousand Christians worldwide identify with this movement. Several thousand worldwide? Yeah, now that’s a real movement! (Even considering that, I was unable to find, in an admittedly quick look at Quiverfull’s website, anything which said that contraception should be outlawed.)
My question is: do some of these people on the left really believe the stuff that they write, or do they know that it’s bovine feces?
________________________
¹ – The Philadelphia Inquirer, Monday, 8 February 2010, p. A-11
² – The Philadelphia Inquirer, Monday, 8 February 2010, p. A-11
That all might have been true for Air America, but the real problem with liberal talk radio is it was redundant. They already have NPR, and all the major TV networks and CNN and of course the New York Times and most of the rest of the country’s papers. What possible news and opinion could Air America provide that liberals couldn’t get elsewhere?
It’s a little amusing to hear all this talk of ‘understanding Massachusetts,’ when exit polling revealed that the health insurance reform efforts didn’t go far enough. Who doesn’t understand Massachusetts, again?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/21/828087/-Poll-shows-Democrats-lost-because-they-arent-liberal-enough
Shane Vander Hart has an informative article regarding the Iowa TEA Party. It should wake up the liberal elite, but I doubt it will. He posted a couple pie charts and discussed them. His discussion is interesting.
Nang: So, y’all are trying to say that voters in Massachusetts really, really wanted health care reform, but because they weren’t thrilled with the packages seemingly under consideration, they decided to vote for a guy who promised to be the vote that would stop any health care reform?
Yeah, that makes sense to me!
From that link:
Haha, very funny! Those Kos guys sound like the men who assured us the Titanic was unsinkable.
Just don’t pay any attention to those icebergs in November …
But the Left is at least these four group:
Blue Dogs: Can’t decide whether to go slightly right or left.
Standard Old time Dems: Just center to center left
Liberals: Range from left to far left.
Progressive Liberals: Far, far Left. Don’t like wishy-washy Dems. Live in a world of relativism. Think the Constitution is a list of suggestions and is open for the interpretation of the minute. However, there is a Progressive Right version of this too.
Shhhhh……Eric, let them keep believing that.
Charles Krauthammer impugns: “Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: The people are stupid, and Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.”
I’ve seen this rightwing talking point suddenly appearing in the last couple of days, in the wake of Obama’s great success in meeting with Republican leaders the other day. You folks wish to close your eyes to the significance of that, because it became quite apparent to the nation that Obama was more than the couple of teleprompters with which you have tried to characterize him. So the people are smarter than you on that one, and on lots more too.
You seem to quickly forget that your party got zonked pretty badly in 2006, then again in 2008, for good reason: you were failing the nation! Are you going to tell me now that the voters were dumb on those two, but now have gotten real smart? I understand you need to convince yourselves to believe that non-fact, but your spinning and twirling are quite apparent to anyone paying attention, and to the jobless.
It is the Right who are currently treating the electorate like dummies, thinking that their current refrain from governing will not be recognized and understood for what it actually is: obstruction of a political mandate. I hope that your “win” using this strategy will backfire, because your policies while in power are largely what produced the severe migraine that we now find ourselves suffering.
The irony is, not good for America, that you folks are now exploiting the very crisis you largely created, with denial and blame-shifting. I believe that Americans are smarter than that, and that the elections in 2010 and 2012 will demonstrate their pain and their intelligence. We’ll see!
Perry nails it: “…you folks are now exploiting the very crisis you largely created, with denial and blame-shifting.”
Have you seen this, Perry? Makes me grind my teeth. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/15
And while we are on the subject of rightwing denials, here is something that our friends on the right have long forgotten about their beloved Ronald Reagan, which has relevance to the policies of today’s Repubs. This is quite revealing!
Take a gander at this piece by Peter Beinart, “The Republicans Reagan Amnesia”:
h/t Jeromy Brown of Iowa Liberal
I am very critical of Reaganomics, because I see it as the root of the economic problems of our day. However, there are aspects of the man that I admire, which, by the way, Obama referred to briefly in his campaign, to the consternation of the far left. So let you Righties not deny some of Reagan’s policy accomplishments, accomplishments which totally embarrass today’s Repubs, so they choose to ignore/deny them. I call this duplicity!
Nangleator: “Have you seen this, Perry? Makes me grind my teeth.”
No, I had not seen it. I’m glad you called my attention to it, however, because in it is a parallel and a warning about the course our nation is on. So yes, my teeth are grinding too!
I hope everyone on this blog will take a few minutes to read this piece. And, I would especially be interested in our local historian’s response to it. What do you think, Dana?
Everything, makes you grind your teeth, Nan.
What aspects, exactly, of the man did you admire?
Read the Beinart article, DNW, then after that, the Freeman piece that Nangleator referenced. You are due for a makeover!
“… you folks are now exploiting the very crisis you largely created …”
Rather than ask you who said no good crisis should go unused, lets ask a direct question instead.
You stated that the crisis was largely created by “you folks”.
How largely in percentage terms, for example.
Take the signing of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. What percentage did that play in precipitating the current crisis?
Take the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac GSE Corporations. What percentage of responsibility did their management play in creating the current crisis?
Take actual administrative responsibility for Freddie and Fannie, which was vested in Congres and not with the Executive. What percentage did that play in the current crisis?
Forget it, Perry. You can play your autistic twitter game by yourself.
If you cannot cite, nor quote, nor address those who do on point, then it’s obvious that trying to reason with you, rather than merely about you as a type, is a waste of time.
By the way, I did read the Common Dreams screed. Polemics instead of history, culimating in the charge that it’s Limbaugh’s fault rather than the fault of those who are actually sitting at the levers of government.
Just ideologically more of the same as Perry’s complaining that the people won’t voluntarily march into the policy cattle cars prepared for them by the Obamunists; or Nan’s implied assertion that a little socialism – like a little rape, no doubt? – is nothing to be terribly deplored.
but the fact that the Tea Partiers are complaining that we are taxed too much and spend too much is never really addressed,
Tax revenue as % of gdp:
UK 28.31%, Finland 22.92%, France 22.66%, Sweden 20.85%, USA 11.2%, Germany 11.04% – Weighted average 17.5%
Government spending, current US$ per capita 9assuming I’m reading this right):
UK $7,951.89, Finland $8,297.72, France $8,286.27, Sweden $10,790.50, USA $6,281.51, Germany $6,291.01
The teabaggers complain, complain and complain – but have no actual grasp on reality. This is not surprising as the movement is manipulated as a form of corporate astroturfing. If you get dismissed as a bunch of idiots, it may well be because you are, indeed, a bunch of idiots.
but the fact that the Tea Partiers are complaining that we are taxed too much and spend too much is never really addressed,
Tax revenue as % of gdp:
UK 28.31%, Finland 22.92%, France 22.66%, Sweden 20.85%, USA 11.2%, Germany 11.04% – Weighted average 17.5%
Government spending, current US$ per capita 9assuming I’m reading this right):
UK $7,951.89, Finland $8,297.72, France $8,286.27, Sweden $10,790.50, USA $6,281.51, Germany $6,291.01
The teabaggers complain, complain and complain – but have no actual grasp on reality. This is not surprising as the movement is manipulated as a form of corporate astroturfing. If you get dismissed as a bunch of idiots, it may well be because you are, indeed, a bunch of idiots.
O’Reilly tries to bully Frank and fails: http://crooksandliars.com/node/23172
Video and transcript at the link. Lots of commentary, but that can safely be ignored.
Socialism is as damaging as rape? Not stipulated.
You’ve enjoyed several socialist programs all your life, and you’d take up arms if they were taken away from you. Still, I’m sure your philosophical equals fought each one tooth and nail, in their time.
DNW, I did say that you folks are “largely” responsible, not totally. But you ask a silly question about percentages, which you know is hardly answerable, so I conclude that your “on point” is nothing more than your playing your usual games, meaning that you are NOT interested in having a serious discussion, rather, only in manipulation and denial about your side’s responsibility and blame-shifting.
In my view, our problem traces back to Reaganomics, the creation of large deficits, which Reagan himself understood in his last term. But the trend, the damage was already done. However, one could put Reagan in a position similar to Obama, in that he inherited a mess, and had to use drastic means for rescue purposes, which in some ways helped. Given a chance, I think Obama’s policies and corrections should help as well, provided your side lets the man govern, as the Dem Congress did for Reagan!
Bush-43, however, did not inherit a mess, rather he was confronted with one (9/11), then, after his initial united response, went the neocon war-monger route, off-budget to finance it, and worse, a poorly executed couple of wars. Then, on top of it all, the Reagan deregulation bug bit, so here we are.
It is telling to me, how you staunch Conservatives, all about individual initiative and taking responsibility for one’s actions, are hell-bent on denying your contributions to this mess.
I will agree with you on one thing, the Corporate takeover of our government, both parties being at fault. The recent SCOTUS ruling exacerbates the problem.
And yes, repeal of Glass-Steagall was a terrible mistake.
Now get sobered up, DNW, with the blast from the Freeman piece that Nangleator referenced. Then try a reasoned approach, for a change, to address the thesis of the piece, instead of your constant erudite spinning! I’m not very impressed!
I must snark:
Like, it was supposed to be spent on kids, not talk radio….
*reads comment thread*
Well, it’s a good sign that you made a solid point when the only opposition action is to try to change the subject. BZ, Dana P.
Perry wrote:
If you cannot quantitatively proportion responsibility, then how do you know it’s “largely”, the Republican’s fault?
It became law when who signed the bill?
Let’s not forget, DNW, that Senate Democrats had to back it in order for it to get through the Senate. But, yeah, the dude who signed it was 1/3 of the federal government, and the deciding factor as it was not veto-proof.
Do you mean “experienced the effects of …”?
That said, what usually happens when lefties make this kind of global assertion, is that they begin illustrating it by defining all government spending, or assistance to “public improvements”, as “socialism”.
In order to place the silliness of that kind of leftist reasoning in perspective, one need only recall the stupidity of the NZ Troll’s assertion that the National Defence Highway System was an example of Federal, and thus ostensibly socialist, development and control and ownership of our transportation networks.
I guess municipal or state spraying for mosquitoes or quarantining scarlet fever victims in the 1920′s was the same thing … “socialism”.
Got something specific in mind? Do I get my money back first?
So it’s your theory that if they lay back and accept what is happening to them, they will eventually begin to like, or at least get used to it.
The leftist reliance on the Stockholm Syndrome in order to justify their acts, again …
Perry wrote:
Haven’t you forgotten? Your side controls the Congress, both Houses of Congress; our side does not.
Liberal Talk Radio doesn’t have an audience because even Democrats can’t stand the hate, the lies, the fraud, the mind numbing conformity, the shame of it all. It’s too embarrassing for even Kool-Aid drinkers to be caught listening to that horrid clap-trap. The failure of Air America is actually a healthy sign. Hate can’t pay the bills.
John Hitchcock wrote
Right, John.
So now we can credit Herr Clinton with something else than defiling the Oval Office sinks and furnishings and young interns with the end results of his self-gratification activities.
So, having established what a Democrat Administration did have control over, let’s go to another question: what branch of government then, possessed policy, regulatory, and actual administrative control over Fannie and Freddie? How were they chartered and who was running them? Were they as GSEs, for example, under the administrative direction and control of the Bush Administration White House?
Reagan had to compromise with a Democrat (this budget is DOA) Congress by allowing them to grossly over-spend in order for them to vote in his tax-cuts, which, (not so) coincidentally increased tax revenue. It sure is nice when liberal elitists fabricate history to prove their points.
Did I mention I’m a history buff and I voted for Reagan and I remember Nixon getting on the plane? You might want to remember that when next you decide to be inaccurate with your history.
Dana Pico wrote:
What can that avail against your persistent obstructionism and counter revolutionary activities?
An ardent minority of persons like yourself, refusing to wave the banner of progress and to willingly add their voices to the chorus, may dishearten even the vanguard class, if so allowed.
Do not speak to us of constitutional power and our possession of complete parliamentary control.
Your lack of fervor is noted!!!!
I liked that, but just to be clear, I’m closing your snark tag for you DNW. You’re definitely right that Democrats don’t want to be reminded that they could’ve passed anything they wanted to if they were all in solidarity with the extreme far-left leadership and they never once even needed a token Republican to pass anything (until MA).
The Phoenician wrote — which I pulled from the Akismet Spam queue:
Sounds to me like they are all taxed too much!
However, that you might think we can stand to be taxed more heavily, the United States is, in the end, a democratic representative republic. It isn’t your opinion that we aren’t taxed enough that matters, but the American voters’ opinions. If the voters think that we are taxed too much, then we are taxed too much.
Stop pulling his stuff from the spam filters! They’re there for a reason! It’s because everything he writes is spam-worthy! /snark
I don’t listen to talk radio as much as I used to, largely because I’m not in the car as much or at the right times (and I’ve discovered books on CDs). I still listen to Glenn Beck when he’s on, but don’t find him particularly interesting or enjoyable, so I often turn on Diane Rehm’s liberal show just to hear what the leftosphere is complaining about these days. We have a good local show (may be on nationally, but not sure) with Mark Davis when I want to think about local or state issues.
My favorite radio show is Michael Medved’s, and he likes to have on people with whom he disagrees. This means he has Disagreement Day, where callers can call in to take him to task for something or other. He also has many authors from the left on his show, letting them express themselves and debating them. He also has other debates from time to time. His show originates from Seattle, which is far left, which may explain how he adapted this interesting format.
Sometimes I hear Rush Limbaugh, although, again, I’m rarely in the car then, and I don’t really like Sean Hannity’s show because he is too repetitive. I do like Hugh Hewitt’s program, which comes on after Medved’s, for a lot of the same reasons I like Medved’s. He frequently has Democrat, liberal guests on and does some great interviews.
When I was a liberal back in the 1980s and 1990s, I listened to whatever liberal programs were on, primarily on the local public broadcasting station. But rarely are those shows as thought provoking or entertaining (with the exception of Diane Rehm and, maybe, Talk of the Nation). It’s hard for me to see why anyone would want to listen to the harsh nastiness of the Air America crowd. It’s not the audience that’s wrong.
The political Far Left got handed it’s head in the 2009 and 2010
elections. Seems Obama ain’t so popular as he once thought.
I’ll bypass the farcity of the great success mumbo-jumbo. But to claim Krauthammer’s statement is all that new is to deny history. Democrats, the mainstream media, and heck, even elitist Republicans have had this view for decades. And there have been people calling them on it for decades. The fact you, Perry, have only recently heard it means your head may have suddenly been removed from your nether regions as you gasped for breath. No matter, you’ll quickly return to your impersonation of the see-no-evil monkeys and all will be right in your world again.
In order to place the silliness of that kind of leftist reasoning in perspective, one need only recall the stupidity of the NZ Troll’s assertion that the National Defence Highway System was an example of Federal, and thus ostensibly socialist, development and control and ownership of our transportation networks.
Given that private alternatives can and do exist, and given the argument that transportation infrastructure represents “a means of production”, what else would you call a national highway but socialism?
However, that you might think we can stand to be taxed more heavily, the United States is, in the end, a democratic representative republic. It isn’t your opinion that we aren’t taxed enough that matters, but the American voters’ opinions.
Alas, Dana, when you admit that it is just an opinion, then you have to also admit that the teabaggers are just a minority group obsessing about their opinion. Further, people should be aware of a context that allows them to make an informed opinion.
By the standards of Western democracies, the US government spends little and the US taxpayer is taxed little. That’s the facts. Teabaggers whining and screeching about “tax and spend” do so from a position of ignorance; their opinion is an uninformed opinion.
There is one serious caveat to that – the above comment is based on an average. The median American tax payer – the average middle-class Joe – may well be more taxed than those statistics would indicate, possibly to the point of being overtaxed.
This is not due to the amount of government taxation. This is due to the structure of taxation – the low effective tax rate for the wealthy elite and corporations in the US. But since the teabaggers don’t deal with reality, we won’t see them protesting to get the wealthy to pay a fairer share of the tax burden.
The teagagee thinks the wealthy should “pay a frirer share of the tax burden”
Share of Taxes Paid by Various Income Groups Source: Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States
Top 1% ($293,415<) pay 36.18% of all personal income taxes Top 5% ($120,846<) pay 55.45% of all personal income taxes Top 10% ($87,682<) pay 66.45% of all personal income taxes Top 25% ($52,965<) pay 83.54% of all personal income taxes Top 50% ($26,415<) pay 96% of all personal income taxes Bottom 50% (<$26,415) pay 4% of all personal income taxes
These figures pretty much blow the “rich not paying their fair share” argument out of the water.
Based on JohnC’s numbers (and you should try out what I showed you on linking, chef), I have been in the top 50 percent 4 years and in the bottom 50 percent the rest of the time, never ever approaching the top 25 percent. And I don’t believe the top 25 percent pay their fair share. They pay far too much.
Of course, that only covers personal income tax. All the rest of the taxes only add a heavier burden on everyone (but that’s okay for elitists and liberals since it’s hidden and the average joe never sees his actual tax burden).
Sure, Pho. You live 10,000 miles away from America, and thus you know what heppens here.
Why don’t you face the fact that you know nothing of what goes on in America.
In short, you suck.
Based on JohnC’s numbers (and you should try out what I showed you on linking, chef), I have been in the top 50 percent 4 years and in the bottom 50 percent the rest of the time, never ever approaching the top 25 percent. And I don’t believe the top 25 percent pay their fair share. They pay far too much.
In other words, you believe you should be taxed more to help out Bill Gates, Paris Hilton, and P-Diddy?
The US is tilting further and further towards the rich. This is reflected in the growing GINI figures.
Sure, Pho. You live 10,000 miles away from America, and thus you know what heppens here.
Better than you, obviously…
I wonder if the wingnuts here have ever seen this graphic?
Given that private alternatives can and do exist, and given the argument that transportation infrastructure represents “a means of production”, what else would you call a national highway but socialism?
Roads are a normal use of taxpayer money, historically speaking, just as the military is. Your comparison is false and folly.
By the standards of Western democracies, the US government spends little and the US taxpayer is taxed little. That’s the facts. Teabaggers whining and screeching about “tax and spend” do so from a position of ignorance; their opinion is an uninformed opinion.
You miss the point that the taxation rates of other countries is irrelevant to the determination by the American people as to whether or not they are taxed too much. This would be akin to Americans determining that, since other democracies have never directly elected a black person president that we should not. It’s not an uninformed opinion. If anything, your insistence that our policies should be based on what other countries do or don’t do is ignorant.
Roads, bridges, dams, fresh water distribution and many other areas have all been government duties since the Romans. That’s part of civilization and is neither socialist nor capitalist since they all occur under both systems.
John Hitchcock, I have a friend who promised me he’d show me that link thing. I just have to wait for him to get here. If the freekin snow ever stops.
Roads are a normal use of taxpayer money, historically speaking, just as the military is. Your comparison is false and folly.
I realise you’re not very smart, but would you care to actually address my point? I did not state that national roading was common or uncommon; I stated that it was a form of socialism. Your counter is irrelevant.
You miss the point that the taxation rates of other countries is irrelevant to the determination by the American people as to whether or not they are taxed too much.
You miss the point that the loud vocal minority of the American people known as the teabaggers have made an opinion without context – i.e. an uninformed opinion. The “determination” of the teabagger set that taxes are too high is exactly the same as the “determination” by a toddler that being sent to bed at a certain hour is massively unfair.
By the standards of Western democracies, the US government spends little and the US taxpayer is taxed little. That’s the facts. If you want rational people to take your whine that you’re taxed “too much” seriously, you need to provide an argument based on evidence, not on stamping your feet and screeching.
Dana: “Haven’t you forgotten? Your side controls the Congress, both Houses of Congress; our side does not.”
Wrong, Dana, not in numbers (58), and further away in reality.
The Dems truly are a big tent party covering a broad political spectrum, making it much more difficult to exert total policy discipline even to get to 58, Independent Sanders #59, and Independent Lieberman #60. Moreover, we have the Blue Dogs, whom some would call DINO’s, and some are opportunists for their states!
So please, we do not control the Congress, as the record well indicates. The Repubs are in a position to obstruct whatever they want with the filibuster threat, and they have, in record numbers, rendering Congressional Dems virtually powerless — totally irresponsible and undemocratic!!!
Trust me, the voters will be reminded of this Repub behavior, frequently, in the upcoming campaign of 2010, then 2012, as we try to woo the Independents!
Good link, Phoenician! “The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation’s wealth…”
JohnC: “Top 1% ($293,415<) pay 36.18% of all personal income taxes…” Does that seem fair?
Oh, wait. Let’s hear about ‘class envy’ now. Defend your masters.
Well, Perry, if the Democrats try to remind everyone of the Republican obstruction of the Democrat agenda, that’ll make both sides reminding everyone of that. “Hey, Independents, you know all those Democrat bills you didn’t want? Well, the obstructionist Republicans didn’t let us pass them. Help us throw them out so we can pass the bills you don’t want. We need your help cutting your own throats.”
JohnC misinterprets the data: “These figures pretty much blow the “rich not paying their fair share” argument out of the water.”
John, referring to your statistics here, they are very misleading, because they to not take into account the wealth distribution we currently have, which is that the top 1% possess about 35% of the total wealth (net worth), and the top 5% possess about 85% of the total wealth.
Thus, should it come as a surprise, using your statistics, that the top 5% pay 55% of the taxes, where these folks are paying taxes on the huge incomes that produce their 85% share of total wealth in America?
You must take our wealth distribution into account in order to reach the proper conclusion about incomes and taxes paid on them. Your data does not do that!
I see, just because someone has more stuff, that means they need to pay more taxes on their income. Not.
John, you are not understanding my point, which basically is that the wealthier among us are not paying more than their fair share of income taxes. In fact, they are paying less than their fair share, based on their incomes and the wealth their incomes generate. I suggest you read through the citation I provided. There are a lot more surprises for you in it!
Perry and Nangleator, wealth is the sum total of all assets, INCOME is taxed. I currently own much more than I earn. That is my wealth, I’ve already paid taxes on that. My income is what I earn, that is what I currently pay taxes on.
You guys are doing the same word games with “wealth” and “income” you play with “health insurance” and “health care”. They are both two completely different things.
If we are talking whether or not we are taxed too much, the conversation needs to be about income and taxes, not how much wealth (or stuff) we’ve accumulated over time. You could also make the statistical observation that 70% of the “wealth” is in the hands of people over 65 years old. Of course it is, they’ve been working, earning, saving and investing the longest. Does that mean there is an inherant inequality? Should we tax all the old people into poverty?
The concept of “wealth distribution” is a communist concept. There is no means to “distribute” wealth other than seizing it from one person and giving it to another. Wealth is earned, created if you will by people. There is no big pile of wealth that we all share in equally. Each has to earn his own wealth. Some do a better job at it than others but that doesn’t mean it’s unfair or inequal. It just means we are all different and have different potential. Are you advocating limiting everyone’s potential to the lowest common denominator? Are you suggesting we should now tax wealth as well as income? If I own two homes and a condo in Boca Raton should one or even two be taken from me because I have more “wealth” than say, Yorkshire?
The other thing you overlook is that the top income earners earn that income by providing goods and services to others who buy them. That same wealth generation does not work in a vacuum, it provides jobs, capital investment (wealth) and economic expansion. Success is self perpetuating, failure is forever. We are all sitting here in a civilization created by free market ideals which has improved the lives of not only ourselves but millions around the world and you are saying in effect: “Let’s cut the balls off the guys who made this possible”. I don’t buy it.
Which model worked best after WWII, the East German/Poland model or the South Korea/Japan model? The former was a command economy wherein the bureaucrats decided who the winners and loosers were. The latter are demand economies who allow individuals to respond to the market and retain the benefits (wealth) of their labor. Hell, we have a problem in this country because the lower income people are TOO FAT. Imagine that, the poor here are too fat. Now compare that with the poor in say, Nigeria. We have a lot of problems in this country, however the creation and accumulation of wealth ain’t one of them.
JohnC.:
Perry and Nangleator, wealth is the sum total of all assets, INCOME is taxed. I currently own much more than I earn. That is my wealth, I’ve already paid taxes on that. My income is what I earn, that is what I currently pay taxes on.
You guys are doing the same word games with “wealth” and “income” you play with “health insurance” and “health care”. They are both two completely different things.
If we are talking whether or not we are taxed too much, the conversation needs to be about income and taxes, not how much wealth (or stuff) we’ve accumulated over time. You could also make the statistical observation that 70% of the “wealth” is in the hands of people over 65 years old. Of course it is, they’ve been working, earning, saving and investing the longest. Does that mean there is an inherant inequality? Should we tax all the old people into poverty?
The concept of “wealth distribution” is a communist concept. There is no means to “distribute” wealth other than seizing it from one person and giving it to another. Wealth is earned, created if you will by people. There is no big pile of wealth that we all share in equally
Watch it John, you just gave the Progressives an idea of a “Wealth” tax.
People do mini-Galts all the time. I heard it, saw it and felt it myself in my previous full-time job.
I worked a piece-rate job where the faster I worked, the more money I earned (also based on which products I was making), so my income varied wildly from week to week. Add in heavy overtime various times of the year and my income could vary from $560 in one week to $1400 in a different week. I found if I grossed $900, I would net more than if I grossed $1000. So why should I work that much harder just to give the money to the government?
JohnC.:
Perry and Nangleator,
Which model worked best after WWII, the East German/Poland model or the South Korea/Japan model?
The Progressives will tell you the E. German, Poland model worked because they had health care, and all were equal. It’s just that some were more equal than others.
John, you make a valid point about the distinction between wealth and income.
So let me go back to your original claim/statistics, that those with the highest incomes pay the most taxes, the implication being that they pay more than their share.
Let’s just focus on the top 1%, and talk about income:
Top 1% ($293,415< ) pay 36% of the total taxes, and earn 35% of total income. (See previous link.)
Since the top bracket currently is 35%, most of the taxes paid by the top 1% should be near 35%, which it is. Therefore, I agree, the top 1% are paying their fair share.
PS: I can also quarrel with you about wealth generation. It’s a loop that has to do with demand and investment. If hard times, for example, limited the demand for your restaurant faire, your wealth growth would slow down. Thus, we have here a chicken-egg argument that gets us nowhere. I think Clinton demonstrated that demand side (tax cuts for the middle) works, and Reagan/Bush-43, that supply side (tax cuts for the wealthy) doesn’t work.
However, I still contend that the skewed distribution of income is not healthy, because it is wiping out the middle class, and has been for several decades. To see a graphic depiction of this problem, click on the above link, and scroll all the down to Figure 7, which covers two decades of this deterioration.
That should alarm you as it does me! For our maintaining our strength and stability, this trend is “absolutely” unsustainable!!!
Yorkshire: “Watch it John, you just gave the Progressives an idea of a “Wealth” tax.”
Not a wealth tax, Yorkshire, but I certainly am against abolishing the estate tax. I have to laugh how you conservatives want to rename it a death tax in order to make a political point.
Sharon,
Mark Davis is a transplant from DC, I used to listen to him and liked him for his local content. He also attracted quality callers. I’ve heard him a couple of times when he sits in for Rush — not impressed. And yes, I do tune in to Rush infrequently, to check on the talking points.
It may surprise you to know that I also like Medved. Ed Shultz has him on at least once a week. Although certainly conservative, he is not an ideologue, rather he is dedicated to information and communication. He is a man of integrity, not found in some of the others that you mentioned and do not listen to often. Medved and Diane Rehm have similar qualities, even though on different sides of the center line. When on the road working, my dial is tuned to NPR, Rehm, Talk of the Nation, Fresh Air, Science Friday, etc.
Thus says the Low Level Government Flunky …
Yeah, this from someone who doesn’t live here, and whose only grasp of American politics comes from what he reads on the Internet.
Sharon quoted and then responded:
The National Defense Highway System in particular [generically referred to by the troll as "federal highways" back in October] formed one of the illustrations supposedly supporting its implication (via an arch rhetorical question) that American freeways represented examples of the kind of general welfare socialism he thought was implied under “Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.”
That remark was found in Yorkshire’s posting: Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution
If it works for for “federal highways” under the Constitution, the troll defectively reasoned, why not for socialized medicine?
What the troll missed of course, was the rationale for appropriating federal funds for the building of the system he cited in the first place: along with docks, forts, arsenals, magazines, post roads …
It was designed as a limited access highway and built for clear military and defense purposes, although it also found other uses and proved, like the Internet a boon to commerce; as defense infrastructure swords were allowed to do double duty as plowshares.
GlobalSecurity.org
Roads, bridges, dams, fresh water distribution and many other areas have all been government duties since the Romans. That’s part of civilization and is neither socialist nor capitalist since they all occur under both systems.
Once again we see the limitations of wingnut binary thinking.
Community control of the means of production is socialism, pure and simple. There is no unadulterated “socialist” or “capitalist” system – all systems contain elements of both.
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF A SOCIALIST ARRANGEMENT IS COMMON, IT IS STILL SOCIALIST. And the reason why it is common is that it works better than a capitalist arrangement for that particular area of activity.
Assuming that “the means of production” includes infrastructure, roading, water distribution and sewerage show that socialist arrangements often work better than free enterprise – for certain, specific areas. Capitalism works better in many cases, but “socialism” isn’t a boogeyman. It’s just a tool.
Eric writes:
If past experience [with leftist Germans for example] is any guide to the present, there’s about an even chance that a foreign troll expressing an inordinate obsession with American domestic politics and society on an American web site has some previous personal connection to the U.S. in its background.
Maybe mommy slept with a Yank back when, maybe he had a couple years of schooling over here, maybe even dual citizenship. Or maybe it’s just that some American laughed at him as he marched around in short pants and a beanie.
Probably as many reasons as there are trolls …
Perry:
Yorkshire: “Watch it John, you just gave the Progressives an idea of a “Wealth” tax.”
Not a wealth tax, Yorkshire, but I certainly am against abolishing the estate tax. I have to laugh how you conservatives want to rename it a death tax in order to make a political point.
Now that you put it that way, it is a wealth tax. But someone who has accumulated wealth along the way, and in doing so with Taxed Money, why should the Government Tax and estate that has been built with taxed money. Strange how the constitution does not allow double jeopardy, but you looking for what amounts to be the same in Taxing.
I know as a citizen it is a duty to pay taxes as a part of citizenship. I have no problem with that. But I do have problems with a tax code that is punitive because of their ability to make more than others. You may call it a fair share, but with the Progressive Tax system, I call it behavior modification. At what behavior the Progressives will find out is the higher they take taxes, the more the high earners will learn through their behavior modification is ways to make less and not pay confiscatory taxes. Progressives, Liberals and jealeous Dems will never learn that lower taxes makes more income for the Government. It’s been proven over and over.
Now that you put it that way, it is a wealth tax. But someone who has accumulated wealth along the way, and in doing so with Taxed Money, why should the Government Tax and estate that has been built with taxed money.
Because taxes have to be enacted one way or another, and an estate tax hurts no one living (remember – dead people don’t get to carry their credit cards to heaven). It is far far better to have a higher estate tax and a lower income tax, or a lower sales tax – actual living people work and buy stuff.
When you say “no estate tax”, you are actually saying “higher income taxes!” or “higher sales taxes!”.
Personally, I’d have a 100% estate tax for amounts over, say $10,000, and use the proceeds to give every person a cheque for, I dunno, $75,000 or $100,000 at age 18. If they want to use it for education, or put it towards a house, or open a business, or blow it on booze it’s up to them.
You will note that this proposal goes a long way towards the conservative principles of “equal opportunity not equal outcome” because it gives every person – whether born rich or born poor – the same chance to prosper. But we all know wingnuts only pay lipservice to conservative principles, especially if they conflict with kissing the asses of teh rich and powerful.
Progressives, Liberals and jealeous Dems will never learn that lower taxes makes more income for the Government. It’s been proven over and over.
Nope. You are either completely ignorant, buying into discredited Heritage Institue propaganda, or simply lying.
Brief clue – what was the Federal deficit in 1980? What was it in 1990?
And see here:
Once again, Yorkshire, you are wrong. Try not to pluck unsupported assertions out of your ass so much.
The Phoenician wrote:
Now that’s just silly: the heirs of the deceased are the ones who see their inheritances taxed away.
People work to build up estates for their children; if they didn’t, they’d just squander everything as they got older. But the estate tax is a final tax on things which were already taxed, sometimes many times over, as the estate was built in the first place: the cash was taxed as income, sometimes as dividends or capital gains, the real estate was taxed via property taxes, the purchases were subjected to the sales tax, and everything was subjected to the pass-down corporate taxes. Then, after all of that, the government still wants to tax it all again, before your children can have what you’ve built over a lifetime.
The Phoenician wrote:
You don’t have children, do you?
Those of us who like to think that we are working for our children’s advantage, to try and help them, specifically.
Your notion is one in which no one has any property at all, but simply gets to rent things from the state. No one who “owned” a home would be able to pass it on to their kids; after the first $10,000 of value (in the US, that would be the driveway) it would revert to the government.
Perry wrote:
Really? When Senators Kennedy and Byrd were ill, y’all still managed to get the Porkulus plan passed a filibuster when three RINOs crossed over to vote for cloture. When President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, it was passed. When the repugnant health care plan was facing a cloture vote, you got it through. I’m not certain how this demonstrates “rendering Congressional Dems virtually powerless.”
Of course, having the majority, Democrats set the agenda: only things supported by the Democratic leadership ever get voted upon in the first place.
Republicans have, just barely, the power to say no in the Senate, and that only with 100% party discipline; that’s all the power we have. Come the opening of Congress in January of 2011, we may have more.
Dana moans: “Republicans have, just barely, the power to say no in the Senate, and that only with 100% party discipline; that’s all the power we have.”
Cry me a river, Dana! Your post did not refute one point that I stated. Joe Lieberman alone has had a profound impact on the workings of the Senate, thanks to the Repubs who love him dearly, empowered because the Repubs were performing in their usual lock-step. And they call themselves disciplined! Disciplined for what end, I ask?
Plus, it is a fact, that in this session of Congress, half over, your party has already managed 112 filibuster threats, more than double the old mark set by the Repubs last session, 54.
If this is not misuse of power, denying the majority from governing, I just don’t know what is!
PS: Repubs even filibustered the formation of the Finance Commission, which 7 Repubs cosponsored, then voted against it. Moreover, they have filibustered 54 (I think) Presidential appointments, including Craig Becker for the National Labor Relations Board, delayed now for 10 months. So we’re not just talking about HCR here. You folks are at your peak in utilizing the Machiavellian approach to obstruct what you don’t like, instead of working with the majority party in committee and on the floor to strike compromises that will help this nation in it’s time of great stress!
On the Estate Tax, there is no tax on the first $3.5 million, and a 45% tax on the amount in excess. Property inherited by a spouse is not taxed, regardless of the amount. That is reasonable! Moreover, there are schemes for avoiding the Estate Tax, such as creating a Living Trust.
I always thought you Conservatives were in favor of folks earning their way to success. Therefore, abolishing the Estate Tax would be giving to those who did not earn it. Isn’t this giving something actually that terrible word, ‘Welfare’? Horrors!
Finally, the State created the context in which successful enterprises operate. I see no reason why the state should not be one of the beneficiaries of the estate which was created, as long as the spouse of the deceased is protected, which is the way it is currently configured.
Wiki, here, has an informative piece on this subject.
Perry complains:
Senator Lieberman is a Democrat. He was first elected as a Democrat, he was the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, and the only reason he’s an independent is that he lost the 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary, but took steps to be able to run as an independent. He caucuses with the Democrats, and is with the Democrats when it comes to cloture votes.
Republicans like Senator Lieberman for his foreign policy positions, but that’s really just about it: according to the Americans for Democratic Action’s liberalism ratings for 2008, Senator Lieberman had an 85% liberal rating, voting against ADA positions on only three of the twenty scored bills, S 2248. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Revisions, HR 2082. Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization and HR 3221. Renewable Energy – Mortgage Relief, Bankruptcy, two of which were foreign policy bills.
As for “disciplined for what end,” the end is simple: to try to prevent President Obama’s liberal policies from wrecking the country!
“As for “disciplined for what end,” the end is simple: to try to prevent President Obama’s liberal policies from wrecking the country!”
Right, after the Repubs already have, so they can return us to the same destructive policies.
Your (the Repub) attitude is elitist, in opposition to helping us to working through these challenges.
There is something wildly irrational about your position, Dana, that defies your often rational, erudite approach to issues, and your articulations thereof. I truly cannot understand it, except to say that it reminds me of religious-speak.
PS: Lieberman is an IINO, which is why the Repubs love him!
Perry appears to be feeling depressed today:
Could it be, perhaps, that we view the Democrats’ proposed solutions as far worse than the problems? As an example, you support a health care makeover that even you have admitted is very flawed, and hope to have changed after it is passed; Republicans believe that whatever is passed will be a far worse system than we have now.
If he’s an independent in name only, then, given his behavior in office since 2007 and his voting record, that would make him a Democrat! With an 85% liberal rating by the ADA, he’s more liberal than Democratic Senators Blanche Lincoln (AR), 80%; Evan Bayh (IN), 70%; Mary Landrieu (LA), 65%; Max Baucus (MT), 80%; Ben Nelson (NE), 75%; Majority Leader Harry Reid¹ (NV), 70%; and Tim Johnson (SD), 80%. Several other Democrats were tied with Mr Lieberman at 85%: David Pryor (AR); your own Tom Carper (DE); and Jon Tester (MT). Note: I excluded consideration of Senators Joe Biden, Claire McCaskill, Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton and others, who showed lower scores, but whose scores were caused by missed votes. No Republican had an ADA rating as high as Senator Lieberman’s, though several Democrats had lower scores than he did.
Your impression is not supported by the facts, Perry.
_________________________
¹ – Harry Reid’s low score could be explained as a parliamentary maneuver by the Majority Leader to enable him to ask for reconsideration.
I’m really mystified by the estate tax thing, too, Perry.
They love the idea of some lazy people living off handouts, producing nothing…
and hate the idea of other lazy people living off handouts, producing nothing.
Nangleator wrote:
I thought I explained it rather succinctly: People work to build up estates for their children; if they didn’t, they’d just squander everything as they got older. But the estate tax is a final tax on things which were already taxed, sometimes many times over, as the estate was built in the first place: the cash was taxed as income, sometimes as dividends or capital gains, the real estate was taxed via property taxes, the purchases were subjected to the sales tax, and everything was subjected to the pass-down corporate taxes. Then, after all of that, the government still wants to tax it all again, before your children can have what you’ve built over a lifetime.
OK, maybe that’s not all that succinct!
But estates have been built up, over a lifetime, and taxes paid on them throughout their creation; there really is no justification for taxing them yet again. Really, that is the state saying that it owns the estate, rather than the original owner and his heirs.
Of course, your notion that heirs are lazy people, living off handouts and producing nothing usually doesn’t square with reality. Even Paris Hilton, the most notorious of the recent heiresses, is a money-making machine: she has parlayed her fame as an heiress into getting paid to party, getting paid to show up different places, as well as several commercial ventures.
It really dosen’t matter what my heirs do with the estate. They can piss it away on booze and porn. What does matter is it is my estate to do with as I please. Who the hell are you to tell me what to do with my property?
And yes Nangleator, I don’t like the idea of lazy people living off my hard earned money which was stolen from me by force. If I’m going to pay somebody 15 grand a year in subsistance I expect them to work for me, not watch me work for them. I’m not their slave. But if I give somebody my property it’s my business, not yours.
The problem we have here are too any failures and screw-ups trying to justify stealing other people’s money. To me, they are no better than common thieves.
Dana: “…they’d just squander everything as they got older.”
Sounds good for the economy, to me.
“Even Paris Hilton, the most notorious of the recent heiresses, is a money-making machine”
Arguably, her money is a money-making machine. And she makes money at appearances because she has lots of money (see previous sentence.) Had her family fortune been taken by the state, it would be doing equal good in other areas of the economy.
Okay, I’m just playing devil’s advocate, here. I don’t really think the state should take everything. I just saw an opportunity to expose hypocrisy.
Again, how are people who live off handouts different from people who live off handouts?
“Right, after the Repubs already have, so they can return us to the same destructive policies.”
Alright Perry, one more time just for you. The economy tanked because the housing bubble burst. The housing problem was a direct result of the failure of Freddie & Fannie. Those two entities were under the direct control of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John Conyers and a list of mostly Democrats. Just because that doo-doo Bush was president at the time does not mean it was Republicans that caused the problems. I can show you video on Youtube where Bush was saying in 2003 that we need to address Freddie & Fannie. I can also show you video on Youtube where just three months before the collapse of Freddie & Fannie, Barney Frank was adamantly defending those institutions and arguing they don’t need any reform. Corrupt politicians be they D’s or R’s just below the radar were and still are using Freddie & Fannie as their own personal re-election war chest. (in Barney Franks defense he only uses it for his butt-buddies).
Please Perry, If you fail to admit that corruption on BOTH SIDES OF THE aisle are culpable, you cannot address the problem. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are evil, nor stupid. However they are both power hungry opportunists who put their own interests ahead of us.
By the way Perry, there is an interesting article on Freddie & Fannie in Feb. 9th WSJ. I linked it from hotair.com but I think you can link it direct.
Now that’s just silly: the heirs of the deceased are the ones who see their inheritances taxed away.
And? You conservatives are hot on the idea of people earning their money – how do heirs earn money through having the right parents?
The top marginal rate for estates over $2,000,000 in the US is 55%. So they still inherit millions – which is more than the vast majority of Americans will ever see. That’s not exactly hurting, Dana.
Your notion is one in which no one has any property at all, but simply gets to rent things from the state. No one who “owned” a home would be able to pass it on to their kids; after the first $10,000 of value (in the US, that would be the driveway) it would revert to the government.
Nope – the notion is that people own stuff within their own lifetimes. The trade-off with not being able to pass it down is that every person, poor, rich, black or white, has a chance to actually make something of that lifetime rather than being condemned or blessed based on who their parents were.
In the discussions I’ve seen on the idea, I think it was referred to as a “birthright tax” or some such. I don’t have those articles on me, alas.
. What does matter is it is my estate to do with as I please. Who the hell are you to tell me what to do with my property?
John, dear chap, which part of “you’re dead” are you not quite grasping here?
You’re not pining. You’ve passed on. You are no more. You hae ceased to be. You have expired and gone to meet your maker. You’re a stiff. Bereft of life, you rest in peace. If somone wasn’t waggling your jaw, you’d be pushing up the dasies. Your metabolic processes are history. You’re off your rocker. You have kicked the bucket, shuffled off your mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the friggin’ choir invisible. YOU ARE AN EX-WINGNUT.
It’s not your money because you don’t exist. You don’t own anything.
It is an estate. It is in the process of passing to your heirs, who did not earn it. It is better to take a dollar on tax from such an estate than it is to take a dollar from the income of someone who worked for that income, or from a sales tax for someone who worked to buy goods.
You’re dead, John, dead.
The housing problem was a direct result of the failure of Freddie & Fannie.
Nope. I can, of course, supply the facts, but we both know you’ll just splutter and rant in order to ignore them.
[...] a year after President Obama took office, that evil man over at Common Sense Political Thought is still at it. He doesn’t even try to hide the fact he’s evil and a Nazi. Well, I’m sure that many [...]
I realise you’re not very smart, but would you care to actually address my point? I did not state that national roading was common or uncommon; I stated that it was a form of socialism. Your counter is irrelevant.
I’ll put both my intellect and education up against yours any time. And by pointing out the difference between roads and health insurance–that one is a typical and normal use of taxpayer money while the other is not–I did address your point.
You miss the point that the loud vocal minority of the American people known as the teabaggers have made an opinion without context – i.e. an uninformed opinion. The “determination” of the teabagger set that taxes are too high is exactly the same as the “determination” by a toddler that being sent to bed at a certain hour is massively unfair.
I missed nothing. Americans think they are taxed too much by about the same numbers as think taxes are right. Only a minority thinks taxes are too low. Again, the ideas of other countries is irrelevant to the discussion about the taxation levels Americans find acceptable, just as the opinions of Americans about the taxation in your podunk part of the world are irrelevant. You get to decide for yourself what taxation is acceptable. Welcome to democracy, Pho.
By the standards of Western democracies, the US government spends little and the US taxpayer is taxed little. That’s the facts. If you want rational people to take your whine that you’re taxed “too much” seriously, you need to provide an argument based on evidence, not on stamping your feet and screeching.
Bluntly, why does it matter what “standard” Western democracies use for their taxation? I don’t care if you are happy letting your government confiscate large parts of your income. That’s your business. Why do you bother commenting on things that (a) are none of your business, (b) don’t affect you and (c) that you know nothing about?
Arguing that one must present “evidence” that taxation is too little is idiotic. Those for higher taxes will always argue that there are better ways for the government to spend my income. But in the greater scheme of things, their–and your–opinions are unimportant.
Because taxes have to be enacted one way or another, and an estate tax hurts no one living (remember – dead people don’t get to carry their credit cards to heaven). It is far far better to have a higher estate tax and a lower income tax, or a lower sales tax – actual living people work and buy stuff.
Well, actually, taxes don’t have to be enacted “one way or another.” They only have to be enacted if our representatives decide there “needs” to be a tax. And estate taxes do, in fact, hurt living people: the heirs. But they also hurt charitable organizations which frequently receive bequests from wills.
You’ve proved you aren’t terribly bright, Pho, and that you don’t understand American law. But one would assume a person who lives under the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence would know a little something about wills and estates. The reason the law recognizes wills as the specified desires of the deceased (and even intestate succession) is because your stuff actually still belongs to you after you die. The government does not, in fact, get to seize your property after your death unless, after a rather complicated process, it cannot find heirs.
And while the process of intestate succession and the tables of consanguinity can be confusing, the philosophy behind it (an old Anglo-English concept that I assume you have in New Zealand) is very simple: you have the right to the property and income you earned, created and bought during your lifetime, and you also have the right to have it distributed the way you would like (provided, of course, that you do not wish to fund, say, criminal activities).
The lunatics on here also brought up some sort of bullshit equivalency between the heirs of an estate and welfare recipients that really defies logic. The fact that my father decided to give his own money to his children is far different than the government deciding to give some unknown person my money. One is done independently and freely while the other is done under penalty of law.
Sharon, there are a couple of points that you choose to overlook, the first being that the estate tax rules set reasonable limits: For example, under present law, the first $3.5 million is not taxed, then above that, taxed at 45%. For a husband and wife, this exemption can be doubled to $7 million in a joint trust.
Moreover, secondly, as you well know, there is a charity/life insurance treatment of the estate before the death of the estate owners, in which the heirs receive most of the estate from the life insurance payment after death, and the charity has already received the estate principle before death.
I am sure there are others, since estate planning to avoid taxes is an industry in itself.
Philosophically, I find the estate tax quite reasonable, based on the fact that wealth is acquired in the context of the infrastructure and the benefits provided by the taxpayer. Sure, one has the right to distribute one’s estate as desired, but one also has the right to be taxed, as is well understood in this day and age of modernity and complexity. To deny the latter is head-in-the-sand stupid!
JohnC claims wrongly: “The housing problem was a direct result of the failure of Freddie & Fannie. Those two entities were under the direct control of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John Conyers and a list of mostly Democrats.”
Wrong on both counts, John. True, Freddie and Fannie played a role, but mortgage lending institutions made the loans, and mortgagees did not read the fine print, meaning that they did not consult attorneys. Secondly, you conveniently forget that Congress, at the time, was in the control of the laissez-faire Repubs.
Now I will grant you, corruption is definitely on both sides in this affair, and others, like health care reform and energy policy. And Congress does not seem willing to step up and fix it, meaning that this blossoming American Tragedy will continue!
PS: John, I did not find your Hot Air link.
Dana says: “But estates have been built up, over a lifetime, and taxes paid on them throughout their creation; there really is no justification for taxing them yet again. Really, that is the state saying that it owns the estate, rather than the original owner and his heirs.”
See my comment to Sharon for my response to your points.
Not only do we have a philosophical difference here, but your attitude seems to be in denial of three things that I personally think to be significant: First, your path to success has been contributed to by the taxpayer, so in the end you ought to pay some back, double taxed or not. Second, we have an obligation to our community, whether it be local, state, or national. Third, the idea of earning one’s way to success is foundational to our culture, therefore, should be preserved as a matter of good character.
And again, there are ways to pass your estate off to your heirs, as mentioned before, so you can still get around the system, in a good way really, because you can both contribute handsomely to charity and still pass your estate on to your heirs.
Now what is your next concern, Dana?
And by pointing out the difference between roads and health insurance–that one is a typical and normal use of taxpayer money while the other is not–I did address your point.
My point was that roading was socialism, Sharon. You did not address it – whether a particular socialist enterprise is a typical and normal use of taxpayer money or whether it is exotic and rare, it ias still socialism. This is why you are considered pretty stupid, Sharon – you seem to be unable to grasp simple logic.
Well, actually, taxes don’t have to be enacted “one way or another.” They only have to be enacted if our representatives decide there “needs” to be a tax.
What was all that complaining about deficits again? You do remember the deficts, right? Where you don’t tax enough to pay for things like armies? This is why you are considered pretty stupid – you seem to be unable to grasp simple logic.
Sure, one has the right to distribute one’s estate as desired, but one also has the right to be taxed
What right is it to be taxed, Perry? And as others have already pointed out, the estate was taxed when the income was made. To tax it again merely because it has been passed to heirs is disgusting and decidedly anti-American.
First, your path to success has been contributed to by the taxpayer, so in the end you ought to pay some back, double taxed or not.
But again, the person to whom the estate belongs already paid taxes on it. S/He has “been contributed to by the taxpayer,” i.e., the estate holder. You also seem to not be bothered at all by the idea of taxing someone double on the same income. Why is this? The same government that double taxes the $8 million family farm can double tax your $200,000 house.
Second, we have an obligation to our community, whether it be local, state, or national.
But hasn’t the individual already paid that “obligation” throughout one’s lifetime? This goes back to the question I always ask the “taxes are too low” crowd. How much taxation is enough?
Third, the idea of earning one’s way to success is foundational to our culture, therefore, should be preserved as a matter of good character.
How is passing on your estate to your children undermining their good character? There’s a big difference between a person sitting around on someone else’s dime and getting the proceeds from one’s parents estate and using it in a way to preserve their memory.
And again, there are ways to pass your estate off to your heirs, as mentioned before, so you can still get around the system, in a good way really, because you can both contribute handsomely to charity and still pass your estate on to your heirs.
Yes, there are, Perry, and if you want to do those ways, you can. But that’s no reason to punish people who don’t do that or who die before they set up such mechanisms.
Sharon asks: “What right is it to be taxed, Perry?”
To pay taxes is a right/obligation (obligation is a better word) of citizenship of every American family, Sharon, because we have a duty to preserve the union by contributing our individual share. Paying taxes is one of many ways to accomplish this duty.
We all, Conservative or Liberal, support limited government, limited taxes, limited spending. The difference between us is where we draw the line.
For me, the Golden Rule provides the basis for making the decisions on these issues.
I am a product of abject poverty, and will always feel thankful for the opportunities that came my way throughout my life, therefore desire to pay back in a variety of ways, including paying my fair share of taxes.
Perry wrote:
Well, I would prefer not to exercise my right to be taxed!
Yet that contribution by the taxpayer was paid for by the fact that I was taxed during the accumulation of wealth.
We are supposed to try to be as successful as we can, to generate more productivity, put more wealth into the economy and, concomitantly, pay more in taxes as we become more successful. Then, at the end, you want to tax away part of the success we were told we should try to earn; that’s just plain wrong.
Which is paid as we pay our taxes, during our lifetimes.
Yet what you advocate would penalize those who are too successful.
There is something that is simply fundamentally wrong about an estate tax: it holds that your property is not really yours, but something the state allows you to have, as the state sees fit.
The only tax which is fundamentally fair is one in which everyone is taxed equally.
The only reaon that you are mystified is because you assume that everything belongs to the state in the first place, that human beings are as fungible as coins, and that the proper political model for mankind is the termite heap.
Perry seems to agree with me:
Yet, despite this noble statement, you would have some people meet their obligation of citizenship by paying higher taxes, while you would have others pay no taxes at all.
Your statement, quoted above, was exactly what the Framers had in mind when they wrote into the Constitution that the federal government could impose no direct taxes except on the basis of population. It was when we abandoned that principle, and decided to tax different people differently, that we got on the wrong track.
Dana says: “The only tax which is fundamentally fair is one in which everyone is taxed equally.”
What exactly does that mean?
“Yet what you advocate would penalize those who are too successful.”
Obviously, Dana, you consider paying taxes to be a penalty rather than an obligation, although a few sentence before, you agreed with me that it was an obligation. I think you are confused!
“Yet that contribution by the taxpayer was paid for by the fact that I was taxed during the accumulation of wealth.”
Of course, Dana, how else?
“Yet, despite this noble statement, you would have some people meet their obligation of citizenship by paying higher taxes, while you would have others pay no taxes at all.”
This is a common misconception from the Right. Every employed person must pay taxes. To a person earning $30K per year to support his wife and two children, that FICA tax of about $2.2K is pretty steep. Please do not forget the FICA and Medicare taxes, gas tax and excise taxes. The unemployed do not pay income or FICA/Medicare taxes, but they still pay State, City, Sales and Property taxes, as do the employed poor. You, Dana, have not thought much about the impact of taxes on those other than yourself, it seems.
Dana, you need to consider and understand the impact, on our low income earners and our unemployed, of the total tax burden before making statements about people paying no taxes at all! There is no such an American citizen that pays no taxes.
DNW assumes: “The only reaon [sic] that you are mystified is because you assume that everything belongs to the state in the first place, that human beings are as fungible as coins, and that the proper political model for mankind is the termite heap.”
Not I, DNW. Your inane, assumptive, hyperbolic falsehood is actually laughable based on the utter ignorance behind that statement!
Obviously, Perry, you have a reading comprehension problem. Equal taxation is an obligation. Unequal taxation, which is used for socialistic redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those who don’t is a penalty. Double, treble, quadrupal taxation is very wrong and insidious. Forcing the successful to pay a higher percentage of their income and then to surrender their property is very insidious and socialistic, and it’s a punishment to those who would deign to be successful.
Except, John, nothing that you said is accurate!
Moreover, you, at $10K per year, are paying a much higher percentage in taxes than Dana and DNW are, I’m pretty sure. Add them all up, then calculate the percentage, then let us know!
Nice comeback, Perry. “Nunt-unh” is always a good trump card. Well played.
Perry wrote:
Don’t be sure. While we make good money, we are not at the threshold at which Social Security taxes cease, so, right there, we are paying the same percentage as John. In addition, his federal income taxes at that income level are nil, while ours are not.
It’s been a meme that, due to the FICA payroll tax, the poor pay a higher percentage than do those who are well off. But since FICA is a flat percentage, everyone who earns a salary pays it, on all wages up to $106,800. After that, no more Social Security taxes, though the 1.45% Medicare tax continues.
The Social Security tax is 6.20%; someone earning over $106,800 (individually; not jointly) will be paying income taxes, and every marginal rate step is greater than 6.20%. In addition, when you reach that income level, some of your deductions begin to get reduced or eliminated.
Even if you are not earning wages, and are living off investments, in the form of capital gains or dividends, those, too, are taxed at a rate higher than FICA.
An additional point: while our contributions to our 401(k)s reduce our adjusted gross income, everyone has a separate box for Social Security wages: you pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on your gross wages, not your wages after qualified retirement plan deductions.
Dana: “Even if you are not earning wages, and are living off investments, in the form of capital gains or dividends, those, too, are taxed at a rate higher than FICA.”
Right, but these are taxed considerably lower than the four of the six marginal tax brackets, 25% on st capital gains (was 39.6%), 15% on lt capital gains (was 31%), 15% on dividends (was 39.6%) , which Bush lowered in one of his tax cut packages, thus part of the charge about tax cuts favoring the rich, true, true! Bush also lowered the top marginal bracket from 39.6% to 35%. Note: The pre-Bush tax rates are on those AGI portions are above the top marginal rate.**
You also, again, failed to mention all the other taxes the working poor have to pay. Taken together, the impact of the tax burden on the working poor is significantly greater than on the median earner (something like $50k).
From now on, Dana, when you think taxes, you ought to think of the total tax impact, and focus especially on the working poor, and compare that to the lessor impact on those earning, let’s say, over $0.5M
Working Poor: John Hitchcock
I’m going to turn John H. into a Liberal yet, for his own good!!!
**Note: I find that many, many people have no concept of the structure of our income tax tables, for example, how the marginal tax rates impact the income taxes we pay.
Perry wrote:
But you didn’t say tax impact; you said “percentage in taxes.”
However, if that is the position you wish to take, I accept it . . . because it now means that you have agreed with me that corporate taxes aren’t really taxes on corporations, but are, instead, passed on down to the end consumer.
You know, I think that this is something that really boggles your mind. Mr Hitchcock suffered a serious financial reverse, and was unemployed for a while; he took the best job he could get, though it isn’t a particularly good one. According to American liberal thinking, Mr Hitchcock should be a liberal, because such might provide him with some additional financial benefits, Mr Hitchcock should want government-run health care (probably single-payer), because it would (supposedly) benefit him, personally.
Yet, despite his currently precarious financial situation, he remains committed to what he believed in previously; despite the fact that the things you advocate might benefit him, personally, he has stuck with what he believes to be right in the larger sense.
Without putting words in his mouth, it seems to me that Mr Hitchcock has chosen principle above his narrower, individual interests. And it seems to me that many people just can’t understand such a concept.
Ask Perry a direct question, say, as to who signed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, and he goes silent – apart from the muted whimpering we hear from his corner.
On the rare occasions he will reply to messages addressed to him, he refuses to quote, or to respond on point.
Address a third party though, and he suddenly appears like some Johnny On The Spot, shrieking out indignantly through a forest of exclamation points.
I’m weary of trying to reason with these useless left-wing emotionalists and trolls. LOL
They are the same everywhere. It’s as if it’s always the same leftist madman who appears, merely to shout out from behind a different name.
If that’s the case, then Mr. Hitchcock seems to prefer taking his chances for improvement in a free-market polity where he lives under the rule of law, than in a “distributive justice state” where he will need to satisfy not only his personal obligations and the law, but the whims and sensibilities of a privilege dispensing bureaucrat, as well.
And really, when it comes down to it, what reason would he have to put his faith in the good intentions some resentful, government desk jockey?
I don’t usually like to get personal, but by way of illustration, I saw what happened when my own father went to apply for Social Security: and the two-bit Stalinist piece of shit behind the desk felt it to be its duty to inform him that “these programs really weren’t meant for people like you”.
This was said to a man who had begun serious work and paid into the “system” as a young teenager; who had quit high school to serve in the war; who had finished up later in night school while working, and who while continuing to work full time, went on to the university; studying business and law, building a career in manufacturing, and contributing materially to the growth in prosperity of modern America; keeping at work until his late 70′s.
If bureaucracy produced justice, he would have received a check in full payment with interest, there and then, and the bureaucrat would have received a shovel blade between its teeth.
But bureaucracy does not produce justice. It merely distributes tax spoils to those who currently qualify as social pets.
If anyone thinks we have not long been in a kind of barely sublimated social war … they are very … much … mistaken.
The only tax which is fundamentally fair is one in which everyone is taxed equally.
Except, of course, that $1,000 means much more to someone earning $10,000 a year than does $10,000 to someone earning $100,000. And that means much more in turn than does $100,000 to someone earning $1,000,000. “Equally” in this case would take account of the utility of income – which is why progressive taxation is fairer than a straight percentage.
And let us consider the simple fact that inequality in the US is at around the level of the Phillipines and Rwanda and drifting up, with all the social dysfunction this implies. Your proposal would, of course, accelerate this.
Why, Dana, do you want the US society to turn into 1980s Argentina?
“Perry: I’m going to turn John H. into a Liberal yet, for his own good!!!
Dana: You know, I think that this is something that really boggles your mind. “
Give me a break, Dana! That was said in jest. I know of what I speak, and I think you do too. The difference is, you seem to have forgotten, or don’t care!
I concur with John’s determination to work for his keep, even at minimum wage. Good for him! Why would you think that I would not admire his fortitude? Your assumptions are invalid.
That said, if John gets really sick, then what? If John cannot afford to heat his house, then what? If John’s family is not in a position to help, then what? It is the obligation of us, his neighbors, personally or through our government, to provide a safety net for John, if he needs it. And he should not be ashamed to ask for the help, if he needs it, though people like you would make him feel ashamed.
You crazy wingnuts, like DNW, make certain assumptions about the working poor, folks who DNW probably spent his lifetime having rarely rubbed shoulders with any, and know nothing about them whatsoever (my assumption). Correct me if I’m wrong, DNW. Has your life been conducted within a gated community? Now be honest and tell the truth, because none of us can check. Your nasty attitude suggests the assumption I made to be true!
Phoenician: “Why, Dana, do you want the US society to turn into 1980s Argentina?”
It is a sad day that myopic Conservatives on here need these fundamentals to be even mentioned. They should be self-evident!
[...] way conservatives, or at least the conservatives who write here, look at things. The comments on this thread — kind of far down, actually — illustrate the point. Our good friend Perry crystallized [...]
[...] on Common Sense Political Thought, where I cross-post (but won’t on this article) concerning my situation and why I am not a Liberal. Dana, who comments here, wrote a second article where that conversation [...]
Dana to Pho:
And, judging from his lousy personality and his “Career” as a Low Level Government Flunky, he’s unlikely ever to have any.
It is a sad day that myopic Conservatives on here need these fundamentals to be even mentioned. They should be self-evident!
Perry, I can’t decide whether it’s myopia (hi, Dana) or sheer stupidity (hi, Eric). I think some of them really do want some sort of feudal structure because they think they’ll be on top.
I agree Perry. That’s why it amazes me that you support Pho’s hatred and anger. That’s because you are a partisan weakling, who has no spine to stand up to those on your own side. Pho is a classic weakling, a mediocrity who has never achieved anything in life, yet he sneers at those who have, and you just go along with it. Are you a Man of Mush, Perry, a man with no spine, no principles?
I’m not sure a Low Level Government Flunky should be talking about “Stupidity”. After all, if you had any brains, you’d have made something of yourself by now.
Oh, if only everyone would be just like you, Huh? Oh, then the world would be “just fine”…(gasp). I have more respect for Phoe, in a myriad of ways. As do others, I’m sure.