…How do we do that, you ask? Simple: surrender more money to the government:
Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.
Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to “take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”
Under the Democrats’ economic plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less  the vast majority of American taxpayers  would receive a tax cut.
Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Thursday that, in his words, “it’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”
Hard to disagree with Senator Biden. After all, when one thinks of American “patriotism” and the ideals of the founding fathers, one is hard pressed not think “redistribution of wealth.”
Makes me want to wave a flag, it does.
Don’t forget large standing armies! All of the Founders were clamoring for those. And God knows that wars cost absolutely no money whatsoever, and that the U.S. can continue to borrow from sovereign wealth funds which themselves pick up lots of nice interest for the world’s dirtiest regimes, including several to whom we sell weapons for some reason.
Any spending is an implied tax increase down the line. Don’t blow hundreds of billions trying to build a pro-Iranian Iraq and then complain when taxes are raised to pay for it.
oh for cripes sake
this is what that moron GW should said after 911.
not “go shopping”, but service and austerity.
what JFK said.
not only are conservatives intellectually unfit to govern, they have no vision for the future.
its always what will last our time.
well, GW didnt push the recession out far enough.
these chickens are coming home to roost.
dy/dx
How DARE you cite the Founders.
Palin is exactly the demagogue the Founders feared and despised.
A candidate elected on popularity with zero credentials to govern.
Palin is exactly what the electoral college is designed to protect us from.
Bush and DeLayCo doubled our national debt. How about we pay enough in taxes to pay off that debt, with interest.
Joe Biden is a big believer in class warfare and a zero-sum economy. In other words, one of the usual idiots. The “tax cut” they propose is transfer payments, many of them going to people who don’t pay taxes in the first place. The last time I looked at it, we called it “welfare.” But I guess I’m not nuanced enough to see the difference.
How, exactly, would taking money from people who make good economic decisions, and using it to subsidize others’ bad decisions, do anything to solve the problem of those bad decisions?
I want to raise the taxes on Carla Fiorina, Meg Whitman and Cyndi McCain. Yes, I do!
I thought Baracky O’Biden was going to lower taxes. Good on ya’ Joe, for letting the truth slip out.
All those people who do not pay taxes – unpatriotic.
Shut the fuck up, nishit. You really are a mental midget.
Call me greedy and unpatriotic but Biden can blow me. If you want to rob me at least have the marbles to bring a gun and do it like a man.
After you, Senator.
Barrett, whining is not attractive I don’t think. Joe Biden is not talking about raising taxes to help spread freedom. The fun game is to figure out what percentage of Americans pay absolutely no income taxes now and then figure out what that number will be if Baracky gets his marxist wealth distribution schemes in place. Baracky has absolutely no plan to address the deficit. None. He said he wasn’t gonna worry about it cause Bush sucks and if Bush can have his war than Baracky can have oodles of hopeychangey gayne$$ in his budget if he wants. And Baracky wants.
*then* … I meant *then*
We know Biden pays his taxes. Unlike Sister Palin he’s released his tax returns for your inspection.
“As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B the propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine,,,what A, B, and C shall do for X”
Joe Biden hasn’t had a real job since before I was borned I don’t think. He’s of the parasite class. Baracky is well on his way too.
I wonder if the Founding Fathers thought of taxes to the crown as patriotic?
Yeah, Jeff, how DARE you cite the Founders…..they’re like uncitable. So, no more unauthorized citing for you. Falcon Crest has spoken.
Wonderful,
Just when we’re gonna need the deep pockets crew to re-capitalize the financial markets with their investiments, Joy B. calls for higher taxes, on wealth, capital gains, dividends, and corporations, in the name of patriotism ?
I guess he’s invoking the little known Robin Hood clause of the Constitution…
I’m not sure, but O!s trickle-up economics sounds like communism to me…
As always, the answer lies somewhere between the two extreme fringes…If only the left could abandon the all-or-nothing mindset they champion under the masquerade of bi-partisanship.
Each time I hear an “election 08” commercial on NBC, and that pompus ass Olbermann says we need to put partisanship aside, I throw up a little in my mouth…
Some trivia: Joe Bin Biden once spit on a sidewalk in Scranton PA.
Let’s raise taxes on gas, FOR FREEDOM!!!
I don’t know, Happy. Biden looks to have lived an honest life off his salary and his wife’s salary. His spouse works as a teacher, unlike Sister Palin, whose hubby sometimes snowmachines and fish traps, or McCain’s wife who inherits golden goblets of Budweiser money.
It’s pretty clear what the Founding Fathers thought of the situation; what’s less clear is what they thought about taxation in general. Primarily they objected because they had no say whatever; IOW no representation in Parliament.
If the colonies had gotten the representation they sought, along with equal rights as citizens of Great Britain. I think it’s likely that the United States would never have come to pass.
I have so much patriotism I used to put my life on the line daily. I had a healthy smoking habit a while back all because I just knew my government needed the tax revenue from me. You know, in the interest of freedom. I am an American Hero.
Holy Trifecta, Batman!!!
“If the colonies had gotten the representation they sought, along with equal rights as citizens of Great Britain. I think it’s likely that the United States would never have come to pass.”
Possibly, but I think it’s more likely that the revolutionary camps would split into moderates and radicals and that the moderates, who would most likely control the local governments, would find themselves assassinated just like Archduke Ferdinand, and for similar reasons. We’ll have to ask Harry Turtledove.
Well now we know why they get so upset if someone questions their patriotism.
But Joe Biden has never produced anything. He leaves that to other people and then tells them they should give their monies all to the government. I find that distasteful.
“Are you wavin’ the flag at ME?”
— Pickup on South Street
“Biden looks to have lived an honest life off his salary and his wife’s salary.”
You know, except for that part where he and Senator Obama steered millions in earmarks toward Hunter Biden’s lobbying clients. That part we don’t discuss…shhhhh! Maybe the media will ignore it while they publish Sarah Palin’s emails. That’s way more important!
Awesome. The three trolls are lying in wait like snakes in the grass and are the first three to chime in as if this were fucking SNL’s version of celebrity Jeapordy or some such. And much like Reynolds, Connery and a dumbfuck to be named later, they all totally missed. And Jeff, not unlike Trebeck, has to just roll with the punches.
Yeah, but he has to go with what he’s good at.
A lot of verbiage spent here by our resident contrarians, so I’ll put the question thusly: Is redistribution of wealth “patriotic”? Because it seems to me that the was a tenet of a rather different political system than the one the founders envisioned.
Simple question, really.
Gosh, Barret. What is one of the things that the constitution specifically empowers the government to do? Hmmmm?
His spouse works as a teacher, unlike Sister Palin, whose hubby sometimes snowmachines and fish traps, or McCain’s wife who inherits golden goblets of Budweiser money.
Fuck me running backwards that’s a whole lot of half truths rolled in to one statement.
Hubby sometimes snowmachines and fishtraps. Translation: republicans can’t have hobbies and commercial fishing is really kind of frivolous.
Ignore: He was involved in production for BPAmerica. In my neck of the woods you can get the shit kicked out of you real quick for implying that those are not real jobs.
Inherits golden goblets of Budweiser money.
Translation: Any inherited money is unworthy. What would Marx say? What would Lenin do? I’ve read a history book, how bout you?
Ignore: She’s actively worked to maintain and grow what she inherited.
#24
It is more than likely that the commonwealth would have occured much sooner, since even Parlement knew in 1770 that keeping the American Colonies at heel would ,sooner or later, end in the colonies asking for independance. Even with parlementary representation.
But your version is much more box office.
#3
How about you get your sorry ass out there and create more wealth. Oh. wait. You get paid by the government. never mind.
“What is one of the things that the constitution specifically empowers the government to do?”
It enables Congress to declare war as necessary. Wake me up next time that happens.
“Is redistribution of wealth “patrioticâ€Â?”
No. Right back at ya: Is the expenditure of vast sums to be paid for by the American taxpayers at some unspecified future date after the Saudis and Chinese have charge us hundreds of billions more in interest patriotic? Is it fiscally sound? Does a party which conducts itself in this manner deserve your support or your vote? Where is all of this money to come from? Will it come from private donations? Or will it come from taxes? Perhaps the U.S. government can simply default on all debts?
In short, please explain to me how our unfunded military mandates are going to be paid for if not by the same citizenry that approved such things by proxy vote.
What does Baracky plan to do about the deficit, Barrett?
After he eliminates global poverty I mean.
“Is redistribution of wealth “patrioticâ€Â?â€Â
No. Right back at ya: Is the expenditure of…
Lord almighty, Barrett, that’s just weird. We’re talking about what Jeff posts, not you.
#31
Other than use taxes. Taxation is legal theft. Bill gates creates wealth. Joe Biden steals it. If you disagree, try not paying your taxes sometime.
#36 Which is part of providing for the common defense. Which is what congress did in 2003 when it agreed that iraq needed invading. You might have been asleep for that.
“It is usually in emergencies or crises that the resemblance between government and organized crime becomes most obvious.”
Charlie Rangel doesn’t pay all his taxes and not only is he a free man he oversees the most powerful committee in congress. I disagree with your analogy. You should say “try not being in Congress and not paying your taxes”
Good, thanks. That is all.
Once O! lowers the waters he’ll start working on lowering the deficit.
Howsabout we start with cutting out all government spending for things that the government has no business spending on, then see what kind of tax burden is necessary to support spending on defense. My guess is, we can cut taxes and STILL have enough money to unleash the war machine on EVERYBODY WHO LOOKS AT US FUNNY!
WOOT!
#36
You should worry more about your social security. That sucks up more money than defense.And ,strangely enough, isn’t in the constitution. And no, social security is not what was meant by “promoting the general welfare”.
Bwahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Bwaaaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Oh, for piss Christ’s sake, that’s funny!
Pink. I thought that was a given. Didn’t Danny Rostenkowski go to jail for the same thing? Or was that stamps? I fergit.
“Which is what congress did in 2003 when it agreed that iraq needed invading. You might have been asleep for that.”
I wish. Congress is not allowed to cede its powers to another branch just because it feels like it. But the original point Jeff was making was that the Founders would not approve of, uh, taxation, which he terms “redistribution of wealth,” which is accurate insomuch as that our wealth is being redistributed to defense contractors and Sunni sheiks. Obviously, the Founders started looking for things to tax almost immediately; you may have been asleep, or perhaps not born, during the Whiskey Rebellion, but I’m a vampire and have lived for a thousand years, blah, blah, I want to suck your blood, blah, vlah, blah, etc. So, I pointed out that Founders denounced George III for keeping standing armies among us in times of peace without our consent, whether we be moral colonial or cosmopolitan vampire. And now we keep standing armies among other nations in times of peace without the consent of certain legislatures insomuch as that the Saudis have no legislature.
As for taxes, George was denounced for raising them “without our Consent.” It is very obvious from the actions and words of early U.S. statesmen that they were fine with some degree of taxation insomuch as that things need to be paid for. They probably wouldn’t have approved of the IRS, though; but the point I’d like to get across, but probably won’t, is that they probably wouldn’t have approved of even a fifth of the things that are now done by both major parties.
“Lord almighty, Barrett, that’s just weird. We’re talking about what Jeff posts, not you.”
Jeff was talking to me and other naysayers; I was responding to his question, as is my habit. Try to keep up.
These people forget that they are our employees.
They’ve already had 10% of my life on active duty. Last year alone they took tens of thousands of dollars from me, and slavery is no more – or so they tell me.
I just want the same deal Charlie Rangel got – $75K tax free income, subsidized housing, vacation home abroad, cushy DC job with the six figure salary. Oh, and match the cash in the freezer that the other guy got, because I have wants and needs like you can’t believe.
“Howsabout we start with cutting out all government spending for things that the government has no business spending on, then see what kind of tax burden is necessary to support spending on defense.”
Okay. Is this going to happen soon? When will all of these spending cuts begin? Perhaps McCain, who talks the language of populism, will be quicker with the veto pen than Bush was. Or perhaps he won’t. Incidentally, I consider hundreds of billions spent for the advancement of the Iraqi people to be something that “the government has no business spending on,” but your mileage may vary.
“My guess is, we can cut taxes and STILL have enough money to unleash the war machine on EVERYBODY WHO LOOKS AT US FUNNY!”
Kill all the theocrats you’d like. But do so with prudence; history is made up of unintended consequences.
history is made up of unintended consequences
A lot of it was on purpose though.
Over the last decade Joe Biden has on average given $369/year to charity.
How DARE you cite the Founders.
Bwaaaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Oh, for piss Christ’s sake, that’s funny!
Dan – That is exactly what I was thinking.
Spending money on the common defense – bad, evil even. Spending money on social engineering – where only angels tread.
“…and slavery is no more – or so they tell me.”
Whoopi Goldberg begs to differ.
Two words, regarding all this discussion of redistribution of wealth: Atlas. Shrugged.
Can’t tax what you don’t work for, and why work any harder than you need to, if the government’s going to suck it up?
So it’s a draft, then, Barret? I get the impression you’d be for all that stuff if someone like FDR promoted it.BTW the largest expenditure of public funds was the Manhatten Project, which was initiated on the word of a handful of scientists.
Why is it always frickin’ redistribution of wealth instead of creation of wealth with Democrats? And why can’t more people see through this bullshit?
They probably wouldn’t have approved of the IRS, though; but the point I’d like to get across, but probably won’t, is that they probably wouldn’t have approved of even a fifth of the things that are now done by both major parties.
I know.
EPA
OSHA
ADA
SS
Medicare
They’d like the Navy though.Those guys knew what it was like to need a good Navy. And airplanes. They’d think airplanes were cool. Especially Jefferson.
“So it’s a draft, then, Barret?”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
“I get the impression you’d be for all that stuff if someone like FDR promoted it.”
I get the impression that you get lots of impressions.
“BTW the largest expenditure of public funds was the Manhatten Project, which was initiated on the word of a handful of scientists.”
It cost $25 billion in today’s dollars, which is to say that what you are writing here is not literally true in the least. Perhaps you meant to write that it was the largest single expenditure of public funds up until that point. At any rate, I’m not clear on what you’re getting at exactly.
If you give a man a lightbulb, he will say, um, thanks, I guess. But if you teach a man to change a lightbulb, you train him for a high-level career in the green jobs sector. Then you can tax the shit out of him.
Damn, happyfeet, you do that again and I’m going to wet my breeks.
I bet there’s a lot you don’t get ,on purpose, Barret. Thanks for playing.
Grow the economy, or grow the tax rate on the taxpayers. The Dems pick taxing the holy hell out of the actual taxpayers every last damn time.
No, that wasn’t my original point. I’m off to workout now, but let me reprise from the original excerpt to save Barrett some confusion:
That is what Jeff called redistribution of wealth. Jeff said no such thing about the founders and taxes in general.
Why Barrett feels the need to paraphrase Jeff in such a short post, where referents are very easily found (well, I thought so. This time I’ve BOLDED them, however, just in case), is anybody’s guess.
As to when government will begin to work as it should, I haven’t any idea. But that doesn’t mean I should give up agitating for it. And I suspect McCain Palin to be more inclined toward spending cuts than Obama/Biden.
Call it a hunch.
No.
I think there there is some interpretation of “and provide for the common good” that might be, though. I just don’t think you’re ever going to get everyone to agree on what that means.
Re-calculate as a percentage of GDP at that time. IIRC, it was ~25%.
Somewhat related, here’s a great piece by the gentlemen over at Powerline:
http://www.americanexperiment.org/publications/1995/199512hj.php
It’s from 1995, but the same myths fuel the “income inequality” and “redistribution of wealth” arguments by the left today.
Also, if you want to know about Palin’s taxes, just dig around her personal email. Jeez.
Is redistribution of wealth patiotic? Nope. Not under any rational definition of the word.
Slart. From what I’ve read I think they meant things like post roads, canals connecting rivers and lakes, etc. Further on, transcontenental railroads, interstate highways, etc. Things that will benefit the whole of the country.
They would have been horrified at paying people to do nothing.
Yes Mark. You have it. I don’t think Barret is an honest broker in this marketplace.
No shit. If Bush would just cut through the bullshit and crank up those printing presses and create us some more goddamn wealth, man, this shit would be over by now. And it’s the bullshit-Dems fault, all of it!
Re-calculate under today’s rules, and it would have been 10x more expensive. First, you’ve got to have requirements, you see, and a multi-year validation process. Plus, Congressional and DoD oversight, audits, documentation, etc.
And health insurance; we can’t forget about health insurance for everybody.
What Barret doesn’t know about the American Revolution is a lot.
But hey now, wasn’t this about PROGRESSIVE taxes?
To be sure, we must not win wars (it just wouldn’t be fair if we won), no matter the cost we put out to lose them. We must think of Gaia’s health, you know.
It just reminds me of how wolves cull defenseless little gazelle babies from the herd, the way Baracky wants to mug people for their money. Baracky’s media will help isolate them and then Harry and Nancy will move in for the kill. Success makes people stand out from the herd I guess. This is why Baracky is warning his peeps not to climb the corporate ladder. Stay in your communities where it’s safe he says and you won’t be punished.
“Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to “take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.â€Â
The fact that he says “back in the pocket” would seem to indicate a tax break for the middle class, as Obama has proposed, not redistribution of wealth. McCain uses the exact same terminology all of the time, and spent a good portion of 2003 and 2004 arguing against the tax cuts before changing his mind on the issue, but you don’t seem worried about him.
It also seems that you consider higher taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes on the middle class to be some sort of unAmerican enterprise. But this is exactly what was being done under the Eisenhower administration, as I recall. Come to think of it, he was pretty friendly with some of those Marxists…
Just guessing, but I think it’s because he’s a dishonest cunt.
Barrett has proven to not engage in good faith, repeatedly. I guess since he is pithy, he gets a pass from most folks.
Cunt? Please do not blaspheme that vessel from which you came.
It also seems that you consider higher taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes on the middle class to be some sort of unAmerican enterprise. But this is exactly what was being done under the Eisenhower administration, as I recall. Come to think of it, he was pretty friendly with some of those Marxists…
We’ll forego your honesty issues for now.
The income tax as we know it was started under FDR.So it is no wonder that Eisenhower used it.In fact lincoln started the idea of an income tax. So. Is paying taxes patriotic? Let’s be more specific.
Is paying income taxes patriotic? Is avoiding paying income taxes patriotic?
I don’t know what Eisenhowers marxist friends have to do with it, but , OK.
“Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to “take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.â€Â
Why take the money at all?
You can’t “give back” what you don’t take in the first place.
Baracky isn’t Eisenhower. Baracky is an angry, insecure little man what has friends who bomb America and also he thinks people are too stupid to know which tv stations to watch. He plays politics with oil and he wants to organize our communities into helpful Corps and Unions. Baracky is a lot more like Hugo Chavez I think.
I guess Barrett has a point.
If you obscure the meaning of the word “keep” – as in McCain talking about letting the people “keep” their money, and confuse that with the word “put”- as in Biden saying that he is going to “take” my money and “put” it into someone else hands, then YEAH- Barrett has a point.
Just Words.
FWIW, the sooner you realize that your moral compass points left, the easier this will be for all of us.
Moogoo Gaipan Securities Ltd., a division of Kung Pao Mao Worldwide.
Well if you follow this logic we should end combat zone tax exclusion for our troops in a combat zone. Doube the patriotism!!!!!
“as in Biden saying that he is going to “take†my money and “put†it into someone else hands, then YEAH- Barrett has a point.”
You are forgetting that Biden also used the word “back.” As in, to return it to the middle class from whence it came.
“Why take the money at all?”
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask McCain? I’m opposed to all taxation on principle, although realistically, since your two little parties will be running the show for perpetuity, I’d like taxes to be sufficient to pay for what we buy, whether they be wars or highways or whatever.
“We’ll forego your honesty issues for now.”
That’s a shame, because I was hoping to get an objective assessment of my character from a group of people who have nothing to gain from providing an objective assessment of my character.
“The income tax as we know it was started under FDR.So it is no wonder that Eisenhower used it.In fact lincoln started the idea of an income tax. So. Is paying taxes patriotic? Let’s be more specific.
Is paying income taxes patriotic? Is avoiding paying income taxes patriotic?”
I really don’t have an opinion on that. I’m only in favor of “patriotism” to the extent that it coincides with individual liberty, anyway. To the extent that it’s simply a mammalian reflex of the sort one finds from Harare to Beijing, I am opposed to it.
Let’s be honest, the last thing the democrats want is everyone to “jump in, be part of the deal”. The bottom 15% of US Taxpayers don’t pay any income tax, so is Biden suggesting that these lower income people aren’t being as patriotic as they should?
I really don’t have an opinion on that. I’m only in favor of “patriotism†to the extent that it coincides with individual liberty, anyway.
No your not. But thanks for playing anyway.
Another phone pole I don’t have to deal with.
What would be neat is if we drilled our own energies and made more jobs so the middle class got bigger and then we could tax them just normal and no one would have to have their money stolen.
Also, good point, Victor.
Why do you guys let Barrett get away with such shit while I’m gone?
He writes:
— without addressing the other bolded bit, which I’ll now reproduce for a third time:
Key points: patriotism is having the wealthy pay more so that others, after the government takes its cut, gets more “back” that they shouldn’t have had taken in the first place. That’s wealth redistribution, with a commission going to the fed coffers.
Perhaps the question should have posited; Does paying progressive income taxes make you more, or less, free, vis a vis individual liberty?
Actually though it’s not redistribution of wealth it’s destruction of wealth, really. That’s one way to eliminate global poverty I think.
We could cut a deal with our supposed over-masters in the Congress.
They agree to cut ten dollars of spending for every one dollar they want to raise in the collection of income taxes (from whatever segment of tax payers the raise may come) and we agree to vote every damn one of them that doesn’t agree to our condition out of office.
It’s a good deal for them, I think.
I’m confused at how everyone is looking at this situation. From my understanding of American history and economics, it seems this communist ideal that everyone says is being spreaded by the Democratic Party has been in place for a long time now and that income tax and social security are really communist tools interwoven in a capitalist society. There were only three kinds of taxes during the time the Articles of Confederation was the ruling document of the land. That was a tax on goods transported from out of the country and also transported from state to state. The second is sales tax to the public. The third was property tax. There was no income tax. Later when the Constitution came into being to give stronger central control to the government then it was introduced to help fund the government more strongly. I mean the income tax is what it says, taxes based on your income. The more you make the more you are taxed.
A person making 30k a year is going to be taxed less than a person making 60k a year. That is the way income tax has always been so when people talk about wealth distribution the concept was already in place with the mere invention of income tax, so I don’t understand how you can attribute this supposed new phenomenon to the current regime or any regime in the 20th century. This is not a partisan issue, it’s an American issue. So if you look at it, wealth is being redistributed from the income tax’s induction. Increasing certain tax brackets more just redistributes the wealth faster but the premise and concept is already there and already implemented. The 250,000 and above tax bracket was already paying more than the average American that makes 80k or less anyway so raising the 250k tax bracket a couple of percentage points does not start a new form of socialism that was not already in place. As I said before it existed from the mere creation and induction because income tax is Robin Hood. Those that make more, pay more those that make less, pay less. Simple.
So unless you want to be like Wesley Snipes and abolish the income tax altogether, then that is a communist tool that will always exist in America. That is why Snipes is in trouble with the IRS for tax evasion, because of some class that he took that told him that the income tax itself was un-American and causes wealth redistribution. So he simply said, we’ll I’m not paying it anymore and we all see what happened to him. Secondly let look at Social Security. The key word being Social like in Socialist. During the Wild West a man only paid his sales tax on goods and property tax. He retired of what he accumulated during his farming or trading days. What ever he made that is what is lived off for the rest of his life, the government did not pay him a monthly sum. A person who could not find work did not get a monthly stipend; they either found work, stole or starved.
When the great depression of the 1920s came and social security was introduced later, to help all those people who were lined up in soup kitchens to get food because they lost all their money in the stock market then the government came up with this brilliant idea. So the induction of this socialist tool caused a mutation of our government from a pure capitalist society to something else. We are not a pure capitalist society yet we are not a socialist society as well. We are a semi-capitalist society with certain socialist principles. This has existed for at least the last century so I am puzzled at every one saying that the current democratic regime is heading to Marxism when certain Marxism principles already existed for the last century. There is no way anyone can say with out doing their homework that the income tax and social security are not Marxist principles. This country took that wrong turn a long time ago, so to argue it now, is too little too late, unless you are going to spark the new modern Revolutionary War to undo what has already been done.
I am an Independent but I know enough that neither party can point fingers when the induction of these principles over time was allowed to happen and to become part of our everyday life and even made people think that these principles are part of a true capitalist society and it is not. Wish we could be like Michael J. Fox and go back to the past and bring a western person or eastern person from the 1800s and bring them back to the future and ask them if they think this new concoction of income tax and social security is really American in their eyesight??
What do you think that person would say about our America?? Because, it’s definitely not theirs.
“Key points: patriotism is having the wealthy pay more so that others, after the government takes its cut, gets more “back†that they shouldn’t have had taken in the first place. That’s wealth redistribution, with a commission going to the fed coffers.”
That assumes that even a portion of the new taxes on the wealthy are going to be redistributed to the middle class through tax breaks, instead of being used to pay for the massive expenditures that Bush has signed into law thus far.
“Why do you guys let Barrett get away with such shit while I’m gone?”
I hope that I’ve addressed your concern with the above. Speaking of “shit,” we’ve got yet another round of people who are claiming that I’m actually a leftist because, like, I think things that we buy ought to be paid for or not bought at all, which is apparently some sort of Leninist dictum. Perhaps you could set them straight? Might save some time that could otherwise be spent discussing the issue at hand.
Jeff. Just trying to get an honest answer from a dishonest man. Hopeless. I know.But it beats cleaning out the basement.
Case in point
Honestly? Because it’s all I expect from him. He’s a dishonest cunt; his style of engagement is more about making himself feel superior, not about trying to actually make a point or understand what others are saying. He’s so full of himself he’s dripping out of his own ears.
It’s really not worth engaging him at any level higher than abuse, because that’s what he’s here to do to the rest of us.
Why do you guys let Barrett get away with such shit while I’m gone?
I had to make groceries.
“Does paying progressive income taxes make you more, or less, free, vis a vis individual liberty?”
Less, I would think. Counter question: does a party which spends lots and lots of money which will eventually come from you make you more, or less, free, vis a vis individual liberty?
Oh I don’t know Jeff, by “back” are talking principal payments on U.S. debt? Because I think money loaned to America does/did belong to “them” in the first place, actually.
Almost $10-trillion in debt and counting! And only $800-billion in fresh welfare payments to U.S. corporations is needed! Or they’ll blow man, kabloowey! Can’t let ’em blow, that’d be so capitalistic.
Must.Keep.Patient.Breathing.
Where did Baracky say he was concerned with balancing the budget though? He never said that. He wants to spend and spend and spend until the oceans and seas are just the right height and there is no global poverty and all healthcare is free. And that’s just some of it. Baracky is not fiscally responsible at all. He spended $150 million of the Annenberg’s dollars on accomplishing nothing. The Annenbergs could have just given that money to NPR if that was the goal I think.
Why do you guys let Barrett get away with such shit while I’m gone?
It takes too much energy to get him to focus on the point you are making as opposed to the point he thinks he’s making.
Po’ Barrette. People always reading what he says and expressing their opinions of it.
Counter-counter-question: Does a party that does the same, to a much higher degree, with not even lip-service to doing otherwise make you more or less free than the first party?
Of course, some of us live in the real world, and have more interest in what can be accomplished rather than the pipe dream of perfection. I’ve heard it called being an adult.
If we had private retirement accounts instead of Social Security then we could invest in growth markets, like China and Vietnam, in our Morgan Stanley Mao IRA’s.
“Does a party that does the same, to a much higher degree, with not even lip-service to doing otherwise make you more or less free than the first party?”
Your premise is faulty. A GOP president and GOP congress has blown far more money than the last Democratic president and a slightly-less GOP dominated congress. From this, I conclude that the Republicans have shown their true colors as a party of populism, theocracy, and jingoism, with fiscal restraint having long been abandoned. Many, many others have concluded the same thing, which is why the ranks of the GOP have been shrinking over the past couple of years. You will have concluded no such thing, of course, not even being aware of the irony in having just a few minutes ago claimed that it’s not worth it to engage me and now suddenly having decided that you simply can’t help but engage me.
“Po’ Barrette. People always reading what he says and expressing their opinions of it.”
You’ve got me there; God forbid I take issue with people’s “opinions” about verifiable facts. Incidentally, my opinion of you from the rate at which you feel the need to insult me, and from the fact that you’ve gone to the trouble of looking up my work for some reason or another, is that you have an unhealthy obsession with me and, perhaps, very little going on in your own life. All of us are entitled to our opinions, eh?
Palin responds to Joe.
http://thepage.time.com/video-palin-in-cedar-rapids-iowa/
Why is Baracky telling all his people to get up in my face? The fat guy with the clown shoes that drives the SUV with the Kerry/Edwards and the Baracky HOPE sticker and parks on the level where I smoke sometimes better not get up in my face cause I’ll just tell him look I’m sorry you’re fat and wear the same clown shoes every day and I know you must be really desperate to identify with something that makes you feel less like such a worthless dork but back off buddy. This is a democracy and I’ll vote for whoever the hell I want and it’s not your little socialist friend. What’s worse though is I know I’ll feel bad after but he shouldn’t have gotten all up in my face like that. What a dick.
Barrett smokes ’em ‘publicans again.
Hey, how about some insults directed at Barrett, that’ll make his facts shut the hell up!
Baracky with Harry and Nancy will spend and spend like no force of nature ever, but worse they’ll make everybody else spend and spend, too. Gas prices sure won’t be getting any lower cause after they release all the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve they’re going to be really surprised to find out where that oil came from in the first place I think. Then Baracky wants to make us pay to help General Motors make a people’s car for us all to drive. And then Baracky wants us all to pay extra for stuff depending on the number of molecules of carbon dioxide, which is an invisible, odorless gas, are involved. Plus also everybody will have to pay union dues for their new unions and I bet for the new Corps things everyone will have to join you will have to buy your own uniform. Baracky and M’chelle is some expensive bitches I think.
Lincoln instituted the first income tax.
How dare u question Lincolns patriotism, Jeff!
Shut up, thor.
I don’t insult you; I make observations about you. I observe — based on your behavior — that you’re a dishonest cunt more interested in starting fights and asserting your self-declared superiority than in trying to understand or to persuade people.
I looked up your work because you kept telling people to do so. Every goddamned time someone would point out that your half-statements and snark sounded a hell of a lot like you were coming from the left, you’d whine that we should fucking look at your body of work. Pardon me for taking you at your goddamned word. I won’t make that mistake again.
And, hey, you’re not going to hear me say the Republicans have been a model of fiscal restraint — they haven’t. But the only realistic alternative is a party that’s even worse on fiscal restraint and for restricting economic and personal freedom. You’re free to pat yourself on the back over voting for a fringe-party crank, thereby maintaining your moral and intellectual purity, but some of us are more interested in what can actually be done. You can’t stop the train by pushing the throttle higher, which is what would happen if the Donks controlled Congress and the White House.
And, finally, pardon me for allowing you another chance to demonstrate that you’re not worth engaging. I’m sometimes entirely too optimistic that people who strut around praising their own intellectual honesty mean it.
China is asking Morgan Stanley to lift up their kimono and show ’em their American goods!
This fundamentals of our economy are strong! We’ll show ’em!
Don’t you have some kitties slow roasting you should check on, thor?
Well I agree with Jeff somewhat. I am not questioning Lincoln’s patriotism but I do question his understanding of a pure Capitalist government. Earlier post below that questions the basis of income tax and Social Security.
I’m confused at how everyone is looking at this situation. From my understanding of American history and economics it seems this communist ideal that everyone says is being spreaded by the Democratic Party has been in place for a long time now and that income tax and social security are really communist tools interwoven in a capitalist society. There were only two kinds of taxes during the time the Articles of Confederation was the ruling document of the land. That was a tax on goods transported from out of the country and also transported from state to state. The second is sales tax to the public. There was no income tax. Later when the Constitution came into being to give stronger central control to the government then it was introduced to help fund the government more strongly. I mean the income tax is what it says, taxes based on your income. The more you make the more you are taxed.
A person making 30k a year is going to be taxed less than a person making 60k a year. That is the way income tax has always been so when people talk about wealth distribution the concept was already in place with the mere invention of income tax, so I don’t understand how you can attribute this supposed new phenomenon to the current regime or any regime in the 20th century. This is not a partisan issue, it’s an American issue. So if you look at it, wealth is being redistributed from the income tax’s induction. Increasing certain tax brackets more just redistributes the wealth faster but the premise and concept is already there and already implemented. The 250,000 and above tax bracket was already paying more than the average American that makes 80k or less anyway so raising the 250k tax bracket a couple of percentage points does not start a new form of socialism that was not already in place. As I said before it existed from the mere creation and induction because income tax is Robin Hood. Those that make more, pay more those that make less, pay less. Simple.
So unless you want to be like Wesley Snipes and abolish the income tax altogether then that is a communist tool that will always exist in America. That is why Snipes is in trouble with the IRS for tax evasion, because of some class that he took that told him that the income tax itself was un-American and causes wealth redistribution. So he simply said, we’ll I’m not paying it anymore and we all see what happened to him. Secondly let look at Social Security. The key word being Social like in Socialist. During the Wild West a man only paid his sales tax on goods and property tax. He retired of what he accumulated during his farming or trading days. What ever he made that is what is lived off for the rest of his life, the government did not pay him a monthly sum. A person who could not find work did not get a monthly stipend; they either found work, stole or starved.
When the great depression of the 1920s came and social security was introduced later, to help all those people who were lined up in soup kitchens to get food because they lost all their money in the stock market then the government came up with this brilliant idea. So the induction of this socialist tool caused a mutation of our government from a pure capitalist society to something else. We are not a pure capitalist society yet we are not a socialist society as well. We are a semi-capitalist society with certain socialist principles. This has existed for at least the last century so I am puzzled at every one saying that the current democratic regime is heading to Marxism when certain Marxism principles already existed for the last century. There is no way anyone can say with out doing their homework that the income tax and social security are not Marxist principles. This country took that wrong turn a long time ago, so to argue it now, is too little too late, unless you are going to spark the new modern Revolutionary War to undo what has already been done.
I am an Independent but I know enough that neither party can point fingers when the induction of these principles over time was allowed to happen and to become part of our everyday life and even made people think that these principles are part of a true capitalist society and it is not. Wish we could be like Michael J. Fox and go back to the past and bring a western person or eastern person from the 1800s and bring them back to the future and ask them if they think this new concoction of income tax and social security is really American in their eyesight??
What do you think that person would say about our America?? Because, it’s definitely not theirs.
Morgan Stanley is mostly run by Harvard boys I think.
“Who is this Morgan Stanley guy and why does he have two first names? And what the hell did he do with my checkbook?”
<Comment by Rob Crawford on 9/18 @ 3:27 pm #
Shut up, thor.
I don’t insult you; I make observations about you. I observe  based on your behavior  that you’re a dishonest cunt more interested in starting fights and asserting your self-declared superiority than in trying to understand or to persuade people.
I looked up your work because you kept telling people to do so.
You sound more confused than Sarah Palin explaining John McCain’s record on deregulation.
You can take your tired political cliches and personal insults and shove ’em up your God-queefing cunt for all I care. You are that typical Bush-cheerleading dope that’s to blame for the financial mess America is in. I don’t question that you love America, R-winger, since you’ve been fucking it so hard the last 8-years. Ha!
#80 Rusty:
IIRC, the first income tax was imposed during the Civil War. It was declared unconstitutional in Pollock v Farmers’ Loan & Trust, (1895). The Sixteenth Amendment made it constitutional.
Uh, “Broderick”, I believe that’s the second time you’ve posted that screed.
Thor, I care less for your opinion than I care for the scum siphoned from the bottom of my aquarium.
#113 Rob Crawford:
I don’t insult you; I make observations about you. I observe  based on your behavior  that you’re a dishonest cunt more interested in starting fights and asserting your self-declared superiority than in trying to understand or to persuade people.
And then he complains about people fighting back. Those dastards!
#116 Broderick:
Mr. Lincoln had a few things on his desk that he thought were of higher priority than a pure capitalistic economy. Winning the Civil War, for one thing.
Mr. Lincoln and Congress passed the first wartime draft. Again, I think there were other things that had his attention at that time.
A candidate elected on popularity with zero credentials to govern.
LEAVE MY ‘BAMMY ALONE!!!!ELEVENTY!!!ONE!!
Rob’s a white welfare dope fearlessly touting his air-headed white welfare queen of a candidate.
Are you getting it on both ends so hard that he can’t figure out who is who? Got your country boy eyes so full red Commie hate that you can’t read the posts?
Over here, I’m thor.
“I looked up your work because you kept telling people to do so.”
Not true, my friend. You looked it up before I said anything about what I did for a living; in fact, I never told anyone any such thing until after it had already been discovered. There was an entire thread in which one poster announced that a google search on me yields interesting results that tend to refute the various wacky accusations you folks had been making. And then you posted an excerpt to part of an essay of mine in a misguided attempt to refute it. Now, you will never admit this even though it is demonstrably the case, being written down and available to anyone who would like to see it. And, well, here it is!
proteinwisdom.com/?p=13039#comment-496980
You are either a liar or confused or both.
Let’s see, among the first three posters:
Barrett: tries to change subject
Thor: tries to change subject
nishi: posts her usual illiterate nonsense to try to drag the discussion off track.
Glad to see they’re all running true to form.
Mikey NTH
Point well taken. However, that still does not negate the fact that a communist ideal logy was interwoven into American society because we needed more money to win the Civil War. I am not knocking Lincoln in the slightest because he did what needed to be done at the time. However some bad things have come from the domino effect of instituting the Income tax. To complain about someone raising income tax on a certain bracket is pointless in absolutism. The point that it has already been in existence is the problem. To blame a politician, Republican or Democrat who now rides on the coat tails of taxation is mood, logically speaking if you do not point out that the installation of Income tax at the source is the true cause and what we see in the modern era is the effect. I think everyone is arguing apples and oranges by blaming a certain candidate or party because of how the candidate or party wants to adjust an already Marxist principle (Income Tax.)
Yeah, thor. Barrett SMOKED ME!
By, well, agreeing with me. I feel so beaten. The rest has just been an attempt to apportion out blame to the detriment of Republicans, the assumption being that I’m some party hack who votes straight Republican.
Sorry. Sean Hannity I ain’t. The Repubs spent horrifically and paid the price at the voting booth. McCain, though, has a sound record of being a fiscal conservative, with something like an 88% lifetime rating; Palin seems to like the line item veto. So I’ll take my chances with them over Obama/Biden, thanks. I have a number of other concerns with McCain, but those, er, Palin comparison to the concerns I have with Obama/Biden.
— Which brings us back again to the original post premise: Biden has said it is patriotic for the wealthy to pay more so that the middle class can have more. And of course, the wealthy will also be paying for those who have paid nothing and need more of everything.
This is wealth re-distribution. The wealthy already give much to charity; the government would rather that money go to them, so they can take their cut and decide where it needs to go. That’s a form of robbery.
Not interested.
Now off again. The prospect of watching thor suck Barrett off here just so he can line up an ally is rather deflating.
“The prospect of watching thor suck Barrett off here just so he can line up an ally is rather deflating.”
Well, sometimes the ladies don’t bite, and I’m a notorious libertine, after all…
I just don’t understand why all the fractiousness. Barrett and thor aren’t making a strong case for Baracky at all. Mostly thor hates on Governor Palin, on cue really, and Barrett is hurt and betrayed by useless Republicans like the Dr. Frist one who is a highly useless individual and also one of those people I would avoid socially cause he has a stick up his butt. nishi has her own agenda. Baracky has his own agenda too where he wants to introduce marxisms on an unsuspecting America with his super best friends Nancy and Harry, and when that happens Barrett and thor are both going to be here expressing their displeasures about that. Count on it. The thing about marxists like Baracky is they are kittenish when they don’t have any power but you give them a little power and it’s just going to suck really hard, really fast. This won’t escape Barrett and thor’s notice I don’t think.
#129 Broderick:
A type of tax is a communist ideology? Perhaps an income tax was something Marx advocated, but that does not necessarily make it part of a communist ideology; no more than having a Steamboat Inspection Service does, or funding local water and sewer projects (for example).
Taking less tax from a lower income and more from a higher income is not redistributionist, per se. It is what is proposed with the tax monies so collected that make it redistributionist.
#100
It was rhetorical, not directed at you. Frankly, you’ve spent all your credibility currency here awhile ago. now it’s simply a matter of degree, not species, of how big an ass you actually are. Bye.
I don’t have the case with me (a Michigan Court of Appeals case dealing with the regulation of an intra-state ferry service – the Harsens Island ferry), but I think it was cited in the case that the British government began to regulate private ferries during the reign of King Charles II. Regulation of a marketplace isn’t necessarily communistic or socialistic.
Obviously the wealthy haven’t paid enough, Jeff, else America wouldn’t have accumulated $5ptrollion in debt over the last 8-years. I’m not interested in charitable tax-deduction giving while our debt pile higher and higher – I don’t want to borrow in the first place.
McCain’s is going to extend the Bush tax cuts, I find that a spectacular strategy because to stimulate the economy you need to lower taxes and borrow money to cover the budget deficit that follows, giggles, and then some pennies trickle down to the little non-CEO-type people, in theory anyway!
I trust McCain. He seems very knowledgeable as to why our treasury bleeding billions in corporate welfare – all in your name and mine, taxpayer buddy’o mine. At least he seemed knowledgeable before he starting appealing the conservative Republican welfare base.
How about we set tax rates at whatever they need to be at so as to balance our budget! Tough economy? Fuck it, balance the budget! Expensive war in Iraq? Fuck it, pay for it! FNMA needs a bailout? Up taxes to pay for it! Special needs children need diapers? Call me crazy! Up taxes until all our agreed upon social spending is paid in full.
Sarah Palin? Did you see how she left the books in her little town of Wasilla? I think she reflects her education. I even suspect she took a lot of Federal welfare money with the help of Sen. Ted Stephens before she decided to become an election day fiscal conservative.
$5ptrollion
Freudian slip.
You old peoples just need to retire later and everything will be okay. Also, exercise and eat many vegetables, like cucumbers and bell peppers. Baracky’s socialism is not a very good solution because we’re Americans, not Europeans.
OK, I did. How does that change the fact that you yourself have played the “GOOGLE IT!!!!!” card and are now trying to turn people doing so into stalking?
Oh, and Barrette, I admit I had the chronology confused.
So, tunnel dick, tell us what you thinkk the top marginal rate should be.
And how come you never mention spending in your little screed? Huh?
I threw that extra ‘k’ in there for you for free.
Mikey NTH
“Taking less tax from a lower income and more from a higher income is not redistributionist, per se. It is what is proposed with the tax monies so collected that make it redistributionist.”
I agree with you once again Mikey. However the income tax itself can be the gateway in acquiring the tax monies and allowing someone in government to choose how the tax will be spent, either to pay of some portion of the national debt or to redistribute it to others that are “less fortunate”. That fact that I worked harder or smarter and found a way to make more money than other people is not my fault nor should I be taxed more because I am smarter, worked harder or my lineage left me an inheritance. I agree with you that it is merely a tool that can be damaging depending on how it is used. My point is, it is still a damaging tool that can still influence thoughts or policy like the ones people are entertaining, so it should be removed. I truthfully believe that a flat rate tax across the board is the only fair way, if we are going to have to deal with an income tax. Everyone regardless of income just pays a certain amount. The way it is structured now still gives an avenue(which is my problem) for the haves to create a way for the have nots if a government or leader so decides, which like I said, still makes it a potentially dangerous gateway. Just my opinion. However I am not going to split hairs with you Mikey because you have shown that you understand my point with flying colors and I definitely understand yours. I think how you and I are discussing points, agreeing on some and slightly disagreeing on others but still understanding the crux of the arguments on both sides is the whole point of this forum rather than everyone arguing trying to feel superior. Kudos to you sir , I have no problem agreeing or debating with you anytime. You’re a stand up guy.
Two words…. Fair Tax.
I tried to imply the tax rates need to be variably adjusted to match expenses.
See, y’all aren’t saying hey what do baracky and thor and Barrett have in common? It’s anger I think. Baracky is tapping into a wellspring of it. This is what demagogues do a lot. It’s really not Barrett or thor’s fault. Some people are just highly susceptible is all.
nishi has her own agenda.
One dollar more for every ten they remove from the budget. Or else.
Variable marginal rates? Really? Set by whom and by what majority? And whoever sets them would never have, you know, a political agenda?
Santa Clause isn’t supposed to set tax rates. Figure it out.
You’ve got a point there, ‘feets. Bitter, mean, clingy broken souls.
Hi thor! Say hello to M’chele for me.
Morgan Stanley is mostly run by Harvard boys I think.
HARVARD, PEOPLE.
#143 Broderick:
The same to you, sir.
#146 haps:
Angry isn’t funny, or something. Angry people aren’t any fun to be with because you have to always be careful about what you say or do around them. Way too touchy, and then the party is a bore because of all the walking on eggshells thing you have to do and you can’t relax.
BTW – I respond by calling you ‘haps’; is that okay, because I would like to know – not that I think you are an angry person or all that. If I give offense it is because I want to, not do that by accident and all that.
Fight fiercely, Harvard, fight, fight, fight!
Demonstrate to them our skill.
Albeit they possess the might,
Nonetheless we have the will.
How we will celebrate our victory,
We shall invite the whole team up for tea. (How jolly!)
Hurl that spheroid down the field,
And fight, fight, fight!
Fight fiercely, Harvard, fight, fight, fight!
Impress them with our prowess, do!
Oh, fellas, do not let the crimson down,
Be of stout heart and true.
Come on, chaps, fight for Harvard’s glorious name!
Won’t it be peachy if we win the game? (Oh, goody!)
Let’s try not to injure them,
But fight, fight, fight!
Let’s not be rough, though!
Fight, fight, fight!
And do fight fiercely!
Fight, fight, fight!
Tom Lehrer, 1945
Bah. The question is, what are taxes for?
If the answer is for collecting revenue, you are either a conservative or a Conservative (=Royalist).
If the answer is to enable social justice, you are a socialist (“progressive”).
Note that there are socialists who have a dim notion of the necessity for revenue, but the mainstream of the kindness party simply assumes that the money exists and argues about how to divvy it up. This is what is mainly confusing about thor. Thor, you want to use taxation to punish people you don’t like. You are therefore a socialist, despite any other protests or attitudes you may make or hold.
The problem with taxation as a society-molding force is that people don’t pay attention to what really happens. thor, especially, rants about “corporate welfare”. Rich people have a disproportionate share of the attention of Government, because they’re rich and can buy it. CLEARLY the correct response is to give Government more responsibility… Any sane industrialist will plump for socialism. If the Government pays the workers the industrialist doesn’t have to, which fattens his bottom line, and he’s already rich, which means he can command enough attention (and deference) from Government to deflect the worst (perhaps all) of the tax consequences. Result: somebody else pays.
The other thing that “tax as social engineering” almost always accomplishes is destruction of the very system it claims to support. It isn’t fair that some people have lots of money and others little. Therefore any time we find lots of money, it’s fair to tax it away and give it to Teh Poor. The trouble with that is, factories cost lots of money. If there is no one with lots of money, factories don’t get built and there are no jobs; so that puts a huge premium on the activities of those who are able to assemble large pools of money, i. e., the “Wall Street Traders” who are the villains in everybody’s mind.
Regards,
Ric
#155 Ric Locke:
That is exactly what I thought I was getting at with “It is what is proposed with the tax monies so collected that make it redistributionist.”
Then again, I could be wrong.
Individual liberty, according to Mr. Brown, is something to be closely associated with patriotism. Unless you make more than $250K a year, in which case in order to be patriotic you need to shut up and do what folks like Biden, or perhaps Mr. Brown tell you.
In addition, the GOP showed it’s true colors in regards to fiscal responsibility, where the last Dem administration spent far less. Of course the mistakes of the last Dem administration in regards to combating global terrorism are what led directly to the current need to spend. Well, in part anyway. I do agree that saying the GOP spent like drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors.
One other thing, when either party starts spouting off about the “middle class”, make them define it. In this case it could be anyone making up to $249,999.
#157 EG:
It is easy to save money on the military when you gut the quartermasters and just contract that part out when the military has to deploy.
I must admit, I’m feeling a little patriotic today myself. I think I’ll walk away from my house, pay cash for a dump and then let that red, white and blue money start rolling in. Put me down as part of the deal.
my country ’tis of thee sweet land of………..
No, Mikey, just backwards. I’m having that same argument via email with Norm Geras.
The question is why collect taxes in the first place. If what you need is to buy bread and circuses, that’s just as “conservative” as anything else — Augustus wasn’t a Democrat (or a democrat of any stripe). If the function of taxes is revenue for whatever purpose, that’s one thing; if the function of taxes is “leveling the playing field” or discouraging “bad” behavior, that’s something completely different.
Regards,
Ric
oh. Sure, Mikey, haps is good. Angry people make a lot of noise because they want you to listen I think. Baracky doesn’t understand that part at all I don’t think. He’s so doomed.
I worry that Obama will be the POTUS. It seems totally out of our character, but then I think Carter, and I start to wonder if maybe we are drinking too much lately.
If you give a man a lightbulb, he will say, um, thanks, I guess. But if you teach a man to change a lightbulb, you train him for a high-level career in the green jobs sector. Then you can tax the shit out of him.
I know it’s way upthread, but I don’t care–feets, that’s just priceless.
What is it you object to more, higher taxes for $250,000 per annum people, or a tax cut for lower income people? If it’s the latter I say you’re a sniffy jerk who just wants to reinforce class distinctions, and perpetuate the righty truism that those who earn less are worth less. If it’s the former, I propose a means test. Those who earn $250,000+ that provide actual measurable capital value to the economy are taxed at the lesser rate. They provide enduring benefits by producing useful products, innovating successul processes, and otherwise expanding markets which in turn promote the private sector welfare.
On the other hand, those many $250,000+ lampreys who do nothing more than nominally preside over bloated corporations, or those who merely transfer non-existent wealth from on in-box to another, or those consultants and contractors who depend on taxpayer slop, and numerous other social leeches (including government employees and their benefactees), should be declared essentially unproductive. They should be taxed up their thieving butts.
I say we put cynn up for a leadership role on the council to determine who is worthy to keep what they may have gotten their stupid lazy hands on.
Poor people smell like lavender. It’s true! I read it in rich guy quarterly.
What is it you object to more, higher taxes for $250,000 per annum people, or a tax cut for lower income people?
Actually, I object to the inability to do arithmetic.
So, where does, let’s say, the CEO of ExxonMobil fall on that scale?
Stand and deliver, Cynn. I want you to hand over all the Lupines you’ve got.
You tell me, Pablo. I’m sure we can assess the haves the same egalitarian way we assess the have-nots. You know, lots of morals and patriotism!
cynn:
Listen carefully–those “lower income people” of whom you speak:
THEY DON’T PAY F’N TAXES!!
Spies: Are you suggesting poor people can’t do arithmetic? Or did I screw something up? (Bad habit of mine, especially when quoting source material).
“Please do not blaspheme that vessel from which you came.”
I guess this means thor won’t be calling anyone an asshole.
“
Like I said, cynn is just the person to be able to stand in the light and declare who should get what. You go girl!
Really, no one else finds it funny that $250K is something clearly laid out, but the other income brackets are a little more, shall we say, fuzzy.
Why won’t you ask the hard questions cynn? Did the man promise you something?
Cowboy: What’s less than zero? We are talking about a tax *cut*.
Mix and matching her eff-you pumps and a canvas NPR truth-to-power bag is the right look. Smashing, cynn, you’re simply smashing!
Spies: Are you suggesting poor people can’t do arithmetic?
No, I’m suggesting that you can’t do arithmetic.
Free lunch = does not exist. Really. Obama is promising you shit that he’ll never be able to afford to give you.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, Edu Guy. According to the brief piece linked, $250,000 is some cutoff point. There is no explication of brackets and corresponding tax rates.
Just repeat the mantra of “tax cuts for poor people”. It removes from you the need to actually think about what is meant by either “tax cuts” or “poor people”. It’s what all the really cool people are doing.
Sorry, Spies, it does not follow.
Well of course their isn’t cynn. To one as interested in the big questions as you, it might occur to you to wonder why.
their being my idiotic way of meaning there
Sorry, Spies, it does not follow.
No, you do not follow.
Sadly, you’re allowed to vote. Panem et circenses!
I guess I’m not getting this. Tax cuts for those who either pay no or minimal taxes. I suppose I could ask Joe Biden: “What’s the point there?” Unless, of course, you want to keep the lower classes under your well-worn bootheel.
Is cynn beginning to understand?
Hey, Spies, err, redneck butthole, whichever you respond to, divide Bush’s debt by the number of working Americans, and don’t forget to add the $800-million in IOUs he issued the last couple of days.
After you write out your check to the I.R.S. for your slice of Bush’s debt pie, let us know.
Yes, the only reason to not want to single out the rich for more taxes is because you wish to keep the poor man down. Good for you cynn.
Whatever you do, do not ask why only one income range was mentioned. It’s for your own good. Really. You’re doing good work cynn.
, divide Bush’s debt
“Bush” isn’t running, tunnel dick.
“Bush” has fought two wars, tunnel dick.
“Bush” doesn’t write the federal budget, tunnel dick.
Other than that, great point!
$800-billion! I meant Billion with a B.
Damn, Freud.
With appologies, Bush has fought multiple campaigns of one war.
You know what, nevermind. There is no good reason for me to be sarcastic to you cynn. Apologies.
And yet, oddly, all the Fannie Mae people are working for Obama, and almost all the Congresscritters who took big-ass contributions from them are Democrats.
Damn, that Karl Rove is a friggin’ genius, isn’t he, tunnel dick?
So your contention is that allowing the pointlessly rich to continue to exert downward pressure is OK? What are the benefits of that? Let’s just declare no taxes for anyone except the poor, ever! It trickles down, right?
With appologies, Bush has fought multiple campaigns of one war.
Quite right, my mistake.
We didn’t feel the pinch of war because Bush was sending out $600 free-cheese checks and lowering taxes and building bridges to nowhere!
The trinkle down is just now coming. You feeling it!
funnel dick:
AIG is $85 billion and the Fed advanced $180 billion this morning.
How do you account for the rest of the $535 b?
Trickle down trinkles!
Let’s just declare no taxes for anyone except the poor, ever!
Umm… cynn, the poor don’t pay taxes NOW (well, not income tax, anyway… sales taxes are pretty painful for them. Hint: you might compare the sales tax in states run by greedy RethugliKKKans to the sales tax in states run by the Democrats, those selfless heroes of the working classs).
Bear Stearns, Merril Lynch, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the FDIC will soon be needing cash since Indy Mac cleaned ’em out and we have yet to pay for WAMU and others.
Funnel dick:
I live in Texas. Bite me.
HE hehe hehe hehe hehe.
What is ‘trinkle’, anyow?
SPB
You can repeat that bit of truth until you are blue in the face, but it won’t ever make a bit of difference. You have been marked as a defender of the “pointlessly rich”. You see, the world must be us vs. them. A zero sum assfucking of the poor by the rich.
It’s your proposal, cynn. Don’t demand that I explain it. So, you tell me. Where would the CEO of ExxonMobil fall along your “producing benefit to society” scale?
Spies: Exactly, so why give them a tax CUT if they pay NOTHING? Do you get this? Unless, I miss the whole income range thing. So what? What whizzed by my head? This must be an elaborate joke.
Exactly, so why give them a tax CUT if they pay NOTHING?
Ask Obama. He’s the one promising “tax cuts to the poor”.
Has anyone considered that the Feds might be cutting deals that the Supreme Court may later strike down? Our national treasury was never meant to bail out corporations.
Pablo, in my febrile leftist cosmology, he would not be creating value, but transferring wealth and sustaining an entity. BFD. I’m a government employee. I do that four hours a day.
Cynn, Go back to your bootheel comment.
You had it. You really did.
No, we’re not. We’re talking about a tax credit. Redistribution of wealth. Many people who don’t pay taxes get tax “refunds”. We’re talking about more of that.
So, the guy who runs the system that quite literally fuels the economy, the guy who runs the system that provides the means for you to get in your car and go to your government job, the guy who provides the means for the food you eat to get to the grocery store and the means for you to go there and buy it, that guy doesn’t create any value?
Are you fucking kidding me? Or are you kidding yourself?
RTO, are you serious? Do you really think this whole Biden deal is some orchestrated attempt to game those poor fuckers who make less than $250,000 into galvanizing behind Obama? Because that is bad naked strategy, and even worse perception. You may have crossed the cynicism event line here.
What else could it possibly be?
Well, yeah.
Joey Hairplugs is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Everybody from his neighborhood is stupid, just ask him.
No, Pablo, he doesn’t do it. He’s interchangeable; have you not noticed how quickly these sucking megacompanies jettison their management and boards? If something with my multinational fuel concerns goes awry, I don’t call whatshisname. You have a hero complex and a silo attitude, in my opinion. It’s all about those who actually do things. The workers, BOO!
Oh my God, it finally dawned on me! Obama is promising the poor something that doesn’t actually exist: a tax cut. Edgy pandering, I like it! Cynical but soothing.
Cynn,
I’m more than serious, I’m convicted of the the notion
It’s nothng new. This is how the Democrats have bveen literally buying votes for a century.
And you twigged to it all by yourself. I’m so proud of you I could burst.
RTO man, do you really have a weapon? ‘Cause there are spooks in the shadows, my uncles told me.
Plus, despite any goofy riposte here, you do good work (and Maj. J.) and all others.
I have several weapons, foremost among them my mind.
No matter, your uncles were wrong. The only shadows to be worried about are the ones cast in DC.
Oh. In addition to all those weapons, I’m also armed.
When the democrats start taling about patriotism, my ass starts to twitch.
When democrats start talking about patriotism, my ass starts to twitch.
I am rather well armed at the moment. Something about the neighborhood…
cynn, I believe that the EITC is what the “tax cut for the poor” is all about. The “poor” don’t pay income taxes – they get all withholding back, and then some. “Tax cuts for the poor” is a euphamism for “I’ll give you more of someone else’s money every April”.
Someone brought up the income tax exclusion we get here in the combat zone. I am rather uncomfortable with it myself.
#215
(snif) I’m so pround. And ya know the beauty part of it ,cynn, he’s going to raise your taxes to do it.
the pointlessly rich
If those people ever marry “the idle rich” we’re going to be up to our asses in Kennedys.
That’s where I suspected you’d go. You’re utterly wrong, of course. What would happen if he and his board suddenly decided to shutter it all up and move to Galt’s Gulch? America would be screwed with a capital S.
And why is it they do that sort of thing? Performance? I notice we’ve added a new criteria for determining who gets to keep their money: uniqueness. Can’t have someone who provides value but is replaceable keeping the money they make.
Your plan sucks, cynn.
I brought up the combat zone tax exclusion upthread because if taxes are patriotic we should be paying them while under fire in a foreign country. It would double the patriotism.
PS How are you uncomfortable with them? As an E4, at the time, they were the only way I was pulling down any money.
You know, nishi is always talking about that percentage of people who are too dumb to make their own way in life.
I think we should start referring to the 40% who pay no taxes.
I’m all for taking away their right to vote. Or perhaps, half a vote?
feets, I dont have an agenda…..im Teh Kourier.
im bringing a message that no one here can assimilate.
there is no culture-war…..there is only the bellcurve war.
VOTER SUPPRESSION!!!!ELEVENTYACORN!!!!11
What I don’t get is how Biden can claim that the money taken from the rich is going to end up with the middle class. Are we building some big middle class housing project that I didn’t hear about? Middle class foodstamps? Social Security and welfare benefits for the middle class?
From what I’ve seen of the Obama tax proposal, taxes go up across the board, but there’s more EITC type returns.
Why that’s clever is that three years down the road when the economy is struggling to deal with the baby boomers retiring and demanding social security and medicaid, the government doesn’t have to raise the taxes, it just has to cut back on the refund amount.
Obama doesn’t even have to do an apologetic announcement a la Bill Clinton. He just changes that part of the tax code, and voila! instant stealth tax hike.
Actually, ‘we’ may as well since we’re being accused of it anyway. I’ve been offline since Saturday, so I don’t know if this story has made it over here …Michigan Republicans plan to foreclose African-American voters.
nishi is Teh Kourier. I started rereading Snow Crash again but the tone was off-putting this time around… might just have to wait and go back to it. I loved the whole cyberpunk thing in the 90s but now it feels sort of glib. It’s probably just me not being in the mood since my new computer isn’t ready yet and I feel about as cyberpunkish as a fried TRS-80 motherboard really. But hey there is a kids book, well, young adult book, y’all should look for called The Hunger Games… I loved it and it’s very well done but it should come out soon and the fun part now is that the heroine, who hunts for food and is very self-reliant, has a lot more resonance now cause of that lady Senator McCain picked to run with. So that one feels very zeitgeisty, even if on accident.
That explains everything.
It’s not that we can’t/won’t assimilate. We simply disagree.
It’s because we don’t speak Stupid. Sorry for that, but given that 95% of everything spoken in Stupid is just too stupid to consider, it makes for a good filter.
Now, off you go. The kid’s table is over there in the corner.
It’s a shame that our bellcurve warrior is out on the left tail. I was hoping for a fight.
there is only the bellcurve war.
Quasimodo anticipates the 2009 Bellringer’s Olympics.
No, nishi. The problem isn’t that we’re stupid and you aren’t.
The problem is, you’re a fool. It’s a different quality, measured on a perpendicular axis.
Not long ago there was a story about a guy in England who got electrocuted. As it turns out, he was trying to steal copper wire out of a shut-down factory. He showed a great deal of ingenuity — “intelligence” — in overcoming the barriers of security fences, locks on doors, and patrols designed to prevent such thefts, among other things. Then he reached inside a cabinet full of live 20-thousand-volt electrical wiring with his bare hands. He wasn’t stupid by any measure of “intelligence”. He was a fool.
It is said that it’s impossible to make things foolproof because fools are too ingenious. I once had a Chief Petty Officer who got it more nearly right. He said that the problem with fools is that they’re persistent — that they keep on with their efforts despite all the signs and portents. That’s right, I think. The most dangerous organism on the planet is an intelligent fool, because the intelligent fool will use all the force of his (or her) formidable problem-solving ability to accomplish destructive or counterproductive ends. The guy who got zapped not only damaged himself, he damaged the factory he was plundering. It might have been re-opened, giving people employment and the economy the goods it would produce. Now that it’s been damaged beyond economic repair, the only thing to do is tear it down — a total loss to everybody.
Coming up with ever-more-ingenious ways of destroying the very basis of the society that provides you with ease and comfort demonstrates a great deal of problem-solving ability. It also means you’re a fool.
Regards,
Ric
Which is why the multi-pointed hats tipped with jingly bells, a generous warning from the sovereign, Look Out! Here comes another one!
Under the Democrats’ economic plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less  the vast majority of American taxpayers  would receive a tax cut.
I dunno, guys. I think I’m with Biden on this one, partly.
I insist however that his threshold is too high. Specifically, I want it lowered to just under $169300. And I want all benefits counted towards pensions taxed as tangible assets, and fundraising for political non-profits taxable and non-deductible.
Think he’ll let me sign his petition?
Comment by BarrettBrown on 9/18 @ 2:29 pm #
Speaking of “shit,†we’ve got yet another round of people who are claiming that I’m actually a leftist because, like, I think things that we buy ought to be paid for or not bought at all, which is apparently some sort of Leninist dictum.
So, you paid for the house and the hot rod in cash, up front? Or did you open up your treasure chest and drop twenty pounds of gold onto your realtor’s desk?
Please don’t tell us you’re still living with mommy and daddy.
How are you typing and linking all your posts? Using the library’s computer you didn’t have to put on the Visa?
BTW financing shit we buy is some sort of Hamiltonian dictum, and still as brilliant as it is harmless 200 years later.
52. Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/18 @ 12:06 pm #
Or perhaps he won’t. Incidentally, I consider hundreds of billions spent for the advancement of the Iraqi people to be something that “the government has no business spending on,†but your mileage may vary.
I agree. Fuck ’em all. They’re brown.
Value? WTF does that mean? Uniqueness?
Are you speaking pig-Palinglish?
14% Flat