Saturday, March 26, 2011
A Not So "Successful" Argument
I've noticed that a lot of my progressive colleagues have been throwing around the term, "the rich", lately. And, yes, for the most part, they've been utilizing it as a pejorative. It kind of makes me wonder here - do they really and truly view these people as some sort of evil monolith? And, if they do, do they simply not see this as being just as stereotypically ludicrous as saying, "the poor", "the blacks", "the Jews", "the gays", "the baby-boomers", "the green-eyed ladies, windswept ladies", etc.? I mean, I don't know about you folks, but I've known (and heard about) a lot of rich folks (people in the top 1%, average yearly income - $380,000 a year) who a) work hard, b) create jobs, c) pay lots of taxes, and d) give a significant amount to charity. Sure, maybe they could/should be paying a little more in taxes (I'm actually in favor of the top tax rates going back to 39.6%). But this concept of universally treating people who've earned and/or inherited and/or lucked themselves to a decent standing in life is just as foolish as it is mean-spirited. Certainly, folks, can't we can try and achieve our objectives a little less angrily/enviously?............................................................................................And, just for the record, I've also known a lot of poor folks whose lot in life was NOT that of being a victim (of the power elite, corporate malfeasance, etc.). They're where they are in life because of their own irresponsibility, foolishness, idiotic decision-making, etc.. It's (i.e., being poor) not necessarily a nobility, always.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Good Post, Take no Prisoners. So I guess this Means you're a Moderate Democrat? Do the Democrats Hate you "Dinos" as much as some Republicans Hate us "Rinos"? Being Moderate just Makes sense to me. I had no Idea that the Word "Compromise" was such a Negative Word Until I Started Blogging, but how does anyone Expect to Get anything Done without it?
I like to refer to myself, Lista, as a Rockefeller Republican/Boren Democrat - a dinosaur, in other words.......Yeah, you're right about compromise being a dirty word. But it wasn't always that case (and, yeah, I'm giving away my age here). Dirksen and LBJ worked together on civil rights. Reagan and Tip O'Neil worked together on social security. And even Clinton and Gingrich worked together on the budget. We really need to get back to that, I think (like they kind of did during the lame-duck session).
"The rich" often gets used as a pejorative term, not because they are "rich," but because 50% of Americans want to make sure they stay rich at what is perceived to be the expense of the "not rich," and it sees the "rich" are OK with that.
I don't think those making 380,000.00 are generally the targets of the pejorative term. I think it those that make millions.
I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with getting "rich" and staying "rich." That it is possible is one of the things that make all Americans love America, including those who will never become "rich," but could.
The Koch Brothers appreciate your defense Will.
Like I said, gentlemen, I have no problem with the top rates going back to 39.6%.......Man, I gotta learn more about these Koch brothers. LOL......Seriously, though, Truth, if you had a million dollars and wanted the money to be spent effectively, who would you feel safer giving it to; Bill gates or the federal government?
As wasteful as the federal government is, I would feel safer "giving" it to them. Bill Gates would spend it on himself. The federal government funds the social programs and educational programs that I like. I know they waste most of it, but it is their mandate to invest in things I care about. If Bill Gates does it, it is out of generosity.
Actually, I was hoping that he'd spend it on his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.......ALTHOUGH, I'm sure that another Ferrari would be quite awesome, too. LOL
It was federal investment that made Bill Gates' success possible. I'll pay my taxes to the government Will.
I'll buy Office 2011 from Gates.
The one thing I want from office is the ability to have word documents as a "spreadsheet" tab, so I can have excel sheet and word documents packaged together as a single project. They have yet to give me that, so I will not buy Office 2011, which I think offers me nothing.
If I could be sure that the money went to investment, and not be lost in Iraq or in some duplicative service somewhere, then maybe I'd agree with you, Truth. But I'm not, and so I'm going with the Foundation here.......John, you know more about computers in your little pinkie than I do in my entire body. I will definitely defer to you on Office 2011.
Man, I gotta learn more about these Koch brothers.
Covert Operations
enjoy will
It's kind of comical the dither liberals get in over the Koch brothers,yet have no issue at all with George Soros.
Rich people don't create jobs. Demand creates jobs. There are rich people who have stepped in and made money filling that demand, but they did it for profit, not out of some altrustic desire to "create jobs".
I don't know why I should have an issue with George Soros. He advocates political positions that will help everyone instead of just the rich.
"Rich people don't create jobs. Demand creates jobs."
Now that Statement is Interesting, yet you Over Look Something, Dervish. How can there be any Real Demand for something that doesn't Exist Yet? Prior to it's Invention, the Demand that there will be for it can Only be Guessed at. Entrepreneurs will not Take Risks Unless they have the Resources in Order to do so.
Whether or not jobs are created still depends on demand. If the entrepreneur guesses wrong and there is no demand then no jobs will be created.
What are the resources that they need? Personal wealth? The benevolence of a rich benefactor? Are you saying you don't believe a regular person can start a business absent either of these two "requirements"?
This Still does not Change the Fact that Entrepreneurs will not Take Risks Unless they have the Resources in Order to do so. When Risks are too High and the Possibilities of Profits Goes Down, there is Less Entrepreneur Activity. This is Human Nature. This Includes not Only the Starting of a New Business, but also Expanding an Old One.
It is not Only Demand that Effects this, but also the Taxes and Regulations that Make Businesses less Profitable and therefore more Risky. This is a Truth that Most Liberals do not Understand.
Perhaps the Main Resource is a Reasonable Hope of a Positive Outcome. A Person is not Going to Borrow the Necessary Money, unless the Taxes and Regulations are Reasonable Enough that a Person has a Reasonably good Chance at Success.
Lista is absolutly correct.Taxes and regulations along with the fear of further government intrusion is the main reason companies are sitting on mountains of cash and not investing.They have no faith in the current leadership.
Companies with mountains of cash aren't investing because they have no faith in the current leadership? In other words, you're going with the "uncertainty" argument? I've heard it. It's utter bullshit.
The Obama administration hasn't rolled out reams of onerous new regulations. Corporations aren't being asked to pay their fair share as far as taxes go. Many pay nothing. Some pay nothing and get a rebate. Cap and trade is dead.
The bush tax cuts are in place for another 2 years. You may say businesses are "uncertain" what might happen at the end of those two years, but back when Clinton was president there were no bush tax cuts. The economy expanded anyway.
What the hell is this "uncertainty" you refer to? It couldn't have anything to do with the Small Business Jobs Act Obama signed in September. The bill extended a plethora of tax breaks to small businesses.
Corporations with mountains of cash ARE investing. They're "creating jobs" in low wage countries. They're also buying back their own stock.
Rusty, your claim that "corporations have no faith in the current leadership" is nothing more than a Republican talking point. It is a lie devised to shift blame to the Obama administration and the Democrats for the Republican-caused recession.
How about we roll back the bankruptcy legislation enacted by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005? That legislation made it MORE difficult for individuals to escape debt repayment. Perhaps making it easier to file for bankruptcy would encourage entrepreneurs to take a chance?
I think it would also encourage entrepreneurship if we had a national health care system. People wouldn't have to worry about not being able to afford HC insurance when starting a business.
Clearly it is Republican policies that discourage entrepreneurship. Large corporations run the show and Republicans what to keep ordinary Americans (and potential entrepreneurs) enslaved to them.
The Uncertainty Myth: The Latest GOP Fraud on Taxes (Crooks and Liars, 12/6/2010) Excerpt: ...despite conservative warnings then as now about "job-killing tax hikes", American businesses responded by adding 23 million jobs after President Clinton raised upper-income tax rates in 1993.
There you go again WD...selective memory.The Clinton economy was fueled by the internet bubble and nothing else.Try just a wee bit of honesty and remember what happened when that bubble burst.
"Corporations with mountains of cash ARE investing. They're 'creating jobs' in low wage countries."
Exactly, Dervish, and that is because there are Fewer Regulations and Cheaper Labor and that doesn't help the US Economy in Relation to Jobs One Bit.
"It is a lie devised to shift blame to the Obama administration and the Democrats for the Republican-caused recession."
And that is a "Lie" Devised to shift the Blame to the Republicans.
Anonymous, Davis Koch is a libertarian whose political views are clearly to the right of both of us. Of course he's going to support X candidates and X organizations (The Cato Institute, for example). Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), he's offset by Soros and and 90% of liberal Hollywood. Me, I've made my point on this issue numerous times - PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.
And this is yet another example of how the progressives and others (from both the right and the left) have tended to oversimplify things. Yes, David Koch has donated to a lot to conservative political causes/candidates. But he's also given 20 million to Johns Hopkins, 30 million to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 25 million to M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 15 million to New York Presbyterian Hospital, 25 million to the Hospital of Special Surgery, 15 million to the Smithsonian, and 100 million to support the arts in New York City (the Lincoln Center, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, etc.). He's also been a strong supporter of the PBS series Nova and funded a science and tech center at the Deerfield Academy. He isn't PURELY evil, I guess is what I'm saying.
You're right, wd, it's consumer cash/demand that stimulates the economy. But Lista's point is a valid one, too. If you have an economic environment that stifles risk and innovation (and, no, I'm NOT necessarily saying that that's what President Obama has done here), then you're simply not going to get that risk and innovation. And, yes, I AM referring to those 60, 70, 90% top tax rates that I constantly hear progressives like you spit out AND the 35% corporate tax rate that people like Bill Gates aren't frigging paying ANYWAY.
Oh, and, just for the record, not all of the jobs are going to "low wage" countries. "60 Minutes" did a piece last night which showed that Ireland, because of that country's 12.5% top corporate tax rate, has become a haven for a lot of U.S. companies/profits....and 100,000 U.S. jobs.......Look, what about my compromise - eliminate or strongly reduce corporate tax rates and offset that with an increase in the individual rates. The economy is strengthened and you still get to gouge (relatively speaking) the rich. Win-win, no?
...Fewer Regulations and Cheaper Labor and that doesn't help the US Economy in Relation to Jobs One Bit.
I agree. Allowing corporations to import goods from countries where they are allowed to poison the environment, pay workers slave wages and force them to work under dangerous conditions isn't good for the US economy. Which is why we shouldn't allow it.
And that is a "Lie" Devised to shift the Blame to the Republicans.
It's no lie. Deregualtion championed by the Republicans directly caused the economic downturn we are currently experiencing.
...selective memory. The Clinton economy was fueled by the internet bubble and nothing else.
You missed my point. Higher taxes do NOT stifle economic growth. If that were the case Clinton's higher tax rate would have PREVENTED the internet bubble. People wouldn't have invested due to the "uncertainty".
In any case, the IT revolution was real. REAL wealth was created. Many internet stocks ended up being overvalued... but the internet bubble is not comparable to bush's housing bubble. bush's houseing bubble created no wealth. Wall Street bundled crappy mortages and told investors the investments were tripple A-rated.
60 Minutes [says] Ireland, [with it's] 12.5% top corporate tax rate, has become a haven for a lot of U.S. companies/profits...
Did 60 minutes explain why these corporations decided to pay 12.5 percent instead of zero percent?
I'm just saying, Dervish, that this Blame Game doesn't Accomplish anything and Accusing Each Other of Lying isn't Accomplishing anything either. It just so Happens that the Statement that "corporations have no faith in the current leadership" is not a Lie Either, for such does Occur. Don't Think for a Second that it Doesn't.
I'm a Moderate just like Will, Only on the Republican Side of the Center Line. That is RINO, Rather than DINO. (Republican in Name Only) Extremists Created those Labels to Make Moderates Look bad.
As a Moderate, I Believe that Anything that is Extreme is Destructive and that is why I have no Problems Admitting that Extreme Republicanism (Total Deregulation) can be just as Hard on the Economy as Extreme Liberalism (Excessive Regulation).
Excessive Government Involvement in Forcing Banks to make Risky Loans Contributed as well.
"Higher taxes do NOT stifle economic growth."
Actually, Dervish, they do, cause it Adds to the Likelihood of Smaller Business Failure Rather than Success.
There are also Always Multiple Factors in Play, though.
You know what not trading with poor countries does, wd? It makes 'em poorer, and even more resentful of us than they are already. Look, I do see your point. But in the 19th century our country had a lot of problems (racism, slave labor, etc.), too. It takes some time sometimes for things to change.
Good point on the lending, Lista. The Democrats (and some Republicans) had this cockemamy notion that everybody in the nation should enjoy the benefits of home ownership (whether they could afford it or not). And when the Bush administration (in a rare moment of lucidity) tried to reign in Fanny and Freddie, people like Maxine Waters shouted out, racism! - a) because Franklin Raines is black and b) because African-Americans would be "hurt" disproportionately. A perfect example of "do gooders" hurting the economy.
Not at all to absolve the Republicans, mind you, but this particular video is telling. youtube.com/watch?v=y4AORuXhnQA
Sorry Will (and Lista) but that's simply not true. The fact is that "Conservatives have twisted the facts to substantiate their revisionist history. But don’t be fooled: the financial crisis was caused by conservative financial follies and bankers run amok and nothing more".
The FACT is that "The Community Reinvestment Act periodically examines FDIC-backed banks and issues them a CRA-compliance rating. To receive a high rating, banks must meet the financing needs of as many members of their community as possible and must not discriminate against racial and ethnic groups or certain neighborhoods. However, a bank cannot receive a high rating unless it is also maintaing safe and sound banking practices. In other words, the CRA requires banks to lend to working-class families and people of color, but only when those people have been deemed credit-worthy. [Source]
What makes you so sure, Dervist, that it is the Conservatives that have Twisted the Facts? Liberals Twist Facts as well. And why does the Blame have to Fall Only On One Side of the Isle? Haven't you Ever Heard that it Takes Two to Tangle?
Post a Comment