Monday, July 11, 2011
Miscellaneous 88
1) The validity of such a concept (i.e., the Laffer Curve) is entirely possible. In fact, I actually think that Mr. Keynes himself posited something quite similar. The question is, is the optimal level that Mr. Laffer posited the actual optimal level. Based upon the fact that there were huge budget deficits under Reagan (coupled with the additional fact that people like Alan Greenspan and Bruce Bartlett are now saying that tax-cuts in fact DON'T pay for themselves), my suspicion is that this optimal level set by Mr. Laffer might indeed be a trifle low (though, yes, I'm clearly open to being persuaded).............2) Since when has means-testing the wealthy for Social Security (having the wealthy get 10% less) and Medicare (having the wealthy pay 10% more) ever been considered a conservative position? I'm telling you, folks, I must have totally missed the memo on that one.............3) President Obama recently offered up a budget-reduction proposal of four trillion dollars. The proposal contained upwards of three trillion in budget cuts and only one trillion in increased revenues. Majority leader Cantor's response to this rather bold proposal was to walk out of the room. How ANYONE at this point can say that the Republicans are even remotely serious about this crisis is beyond me. Obama - he's the one who's being serious and taking on his base, not frigging Boehner and Cantor. Look, folks, I try and call it down the middle as often as possible (and, yeah, I've totally got the scars to prove it). But when these Republicans are so much as afraid to say boo to the Tea Partiers, at that point there really isn't all that much of a middle left.............4) Michele Bachmann is now officially on the record as saying that she will NOT support an increase in the debt-ceiling. Hm/gee, I wonder which of those 80 million government checks that go out every month she's preparing to put a "stop" on. Hey, I've got an idea; how 'bout her own?............5) Not that I'm endorsing Mr. Laffer's (or anybody else's, for that matter) curve here, mind you. But his theory kind of does make sense in this regard. At some point in ANY taxation process, you in fact DO reach a point of diminishing returns. Take the progressive's position of a 70% top rate. When you combine that with the 7.65% FICA tax (they also want to eliminate the cap on that tax), the top state income tax rate in NY of nearly 9%, sky-high property taxes there, all of the other taxes such as sales, gas, sin, luxury, etc., you are, folks, for all intents and purposes, taking it all. And, yes, when you in fact do take it all, nothing/zero/bubkas is no doubt what you're ultimately going to get (this, in that most people will simply stop trying to make above and beyond that amount). Duh, huh?............6) But, hey, what's one more landmark invention, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
What is your point on #2?
Will: How ANYONE at this point can say that the Republicans are even remotely serious about this crisis is beyond me.
This is EXACTLY the point I made here on this blog not long ago. Both you and Marcus got seriously bent out of shape when I pointed this out. Marcus got sad and insisted I was burning bridges.
Now suddenly it's "beyond you"? What, you had to disagree before because the revelation was coming from someone you disagree with politically?
Will: Since when has means-testing... ever been considered a conservative position?
Totally false. Republicans like means testing because it reduces the number of people who will object when they move to eliminate these programs entirely.
Will: you are, folks, for all intents and purposes, taking it all.
Totally false. You're assuming the uber-rich spend 100 percent of their income. You don't pay sales, gas, sin, or luxury tax on money you don't spend. Any property tax would be paid out of income earned before the 70 percent rate kicks in.
Will, let me try to explain item #3 for you. You're looking at it as if there is only one issue in play: budget cuts and/or the debt ceiling.
A second issue in the mix is the fragile economy, and conservatives are certain (as is Obama circa-December 2010) that raising any taxes during an economic recovery would be bad.
So if President Obama makes a proposal on issue #1 that impacts issue #2, Republicans are going to walk away from the table. To you it might appear that Obama has made a reasonable offer for $4 trillion, but he introduced a deal-breaker.
Now, if he were to offer a $4 trillion deal that included only cuts and no tax increases, you wouldn't see Republicans walk away.
WD said: "Totally false. Republicans like means testing because it reduces the number of people who will object when they move to eliminate these programs entirely"
I thought that was quite bizaree when I first read it in another comment. What you are advocating here is the government spending hundreds of billions of dollars on welfare for the rich for something like mere propaganda purposes of making such programs easier to support for the needy. Talk about gross fiscal irresponsibility. That has to be one of the very worst waste of taxpayer dollars imaginable.
What next? Will you ask that the food stamp program be extended to everyone of all income levels?
Also, your "reason why" is entirely false. You won't find any conservative who advocates this for the reason you describe. The reason for means testing is so that government resources won't be squandered on the well-off. That's entirely it.
dmarks, if means-testing is so reasonable WHY wasn't it a part of Social Security and Medicare when they were first set up? Was squandering money on the well-off one of the GOALS of the politicians who set up these programs?
BTW, people PAY into these programs. If someone PAYS into the program and then means-testing is passed and they get nothing... I think (at least some) of these people will decide the programs should be done away with (and do something to accomplish that goal).
As far as food stamps go... it's funded by tax dollars -- nobody contributes money DIRECTLY to the program.
There are numerous Conservative ideas I find quite bizarre. The Laffer Curve -- a theory that suggests if we cut taxes we can increase revenue -- is one. I find the fact that that Republicans still cling to this disproven theory VERY bizarre. Even more bizarre is a continued belief in the theory by non-Republicans like Will. That the Laffer curve has any validity is laughable.
Supply side economics is a conservative hoax.
As for the Heathen Republican's concern about the fragile economy... not raising taxes is what is doing the damage. We need more stimulus. We should not only repeal the bush tax cuts... we should repeal the Reagan tax cuts. Things will only continue to go downhill until the politicians realize that taxing those with high incomes is beneficial to the economy.
The economic growth we enjoyed during the 50s, 60s, and 70s is proof of this. We've been in decline ever since Reagan deluded us into believing in nonsense like the Laffer curve.
Clinton raised taxes a tiny amount and the economy boomed and we ended up with a surplus. I don't know why that isn't proof enough that Republican economic theories are TOTALLY WRONG.
Of course Republicans will never admit the ONLY reason they push their disproven economic theories is because they benefit the rich (exclusively) and HARM everybody else... which is why we need to vote as many of them as possible out of office.
Unfortunately it looks like the economy will have to enter a full-blown depression before people finally come to their senses (which is what happened when FDR was elected).
wd, show me one place where I EVER got bent out of shape pertaining to a balanced approach. I have said from the beginning that revenues had to be on the table. On the project that Marcus and I did, we raised taxes in people making over $300,000 a year, reduced the cap on mortgage deduction from a million to $500,000, AND we got rid of a whole bunch of subsidies such as oil and ethanol (yes, I know, they that passed already). What I believed he and I responded negatively to was your completely UNBALANCED approach.
Yes, wd, I understand that property taxes can be deducted (the progressives don't want to take that away, too?). But you still have to pay them. For example, a guy makes $100,000 a year and pays $10,000 in property taxes. Say he pays at a 40% tax clip. He pays the $10,000 in property taxes and still has to pay 40% of the remaining $90,000. That comes out to $36,000, instead of the $40,000 without the deduction. He gets $4,000 off of his tax bill, not the entire $10,000. Of course, yes, with you God-awful 70%, he would get $7,000 off.
HR, I can only reiterate what Alan Greenspan, David Stockman, and Bruce Bartlett have all recently said; tax cuts do not pay for themselves..............Add to that what Moody's has said about tax-cuts; that they're significantly less stimulative than infrastructure, etc..............And I believe that The President and people like Chuck Schumer have even offered to raise the threshold to a million (as opposed to the $250,000) for these tax increases. As an independent who's looking for compromise here, I'm just not seeing it from the GOP. I think that Boehner would like to compromise but he's simply too afraid of the Tea Party (he even fears a primary challenge).
dmarks, wd sees slippery-slopes and conspiracy theories in his cereal every morning. Take this latest one of his for what it's worth.
WD said: "Clinton raised taxes a tiny amount and the economy boomed and we ended up with a surplus. I don't know why that isn't proof enough that Republican economic theories are TOTALLY WRONG."
You base your conclusion on a false premise. There was a constant debt on Clinton's watch. The national debt increased constantly. There was no surplus.
Let's be clear, even Republicans aren't looking for tax cuts as part of the deal, but they are opposing tax increases. I recently posted on conservatives arguing for tax cuts in order to cut government, which involves quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. As others have pointed out, depending on where we are on the Laffer Curve, tax cuts may not increase revenue, so your point is well made.
But for Republicans to agree to any plan that involves raising taxes would mean political suicide (see George H.W.Bush). You were tying the issues together, when tax increases are a very different issue for the GOP and not something that can be part of the deal.
Dervish:
I want to challenge your comments.
First off, you wrote a blog posting where you set forth arguements saying Moderates were idiots. You trashed my friend Will and to a lesser extent myself. By quoting what was said on this blog you were insinuating Will and I are idiots despite your disingenious claims otherwise. THAT is what saddened me...When I called you on it you were unrepentant. You didn't have the guts to own up to it. I would respect you far more if you would tell it like it is. There are other posters on this blog who have disagreed with me, but at least they are honest. They don't hide behind self serving spin...
Second, it is patently obvious by your comments below, that you still in fact, don't get it. You quite predictably, are trying to frame this as a "I told you so" moment...Great. You have safely tucked yourself away in your comfortable and self righteous cacoon of orthodoxy...You are the ultimate "Johnny One Note", incapable of seeing ANYTHING beyond your rigid, stilted, one dimnesional world. To wit, you ALWAYS see Republicans as not only wrong, but inherently evil on everything. What you can't perceive is that Conservatism, like Progressivism, is a philosophy, a perspective...a philosphy is not the enemy. What is our enemy is calcified, rigid and unyielding devotion to party affilation that has become a false RELIGION...You serve the same false God that the Right wing extremists do. As guilty as some Conservatives may be of these charges, there are plenty of Democrats guilty of the same inflexibility. Can you say entitlements? Does any of this strike a chord with you??? Unless BOTH parties do the right thing and agree to a deal, we are going down the crapper...you can lay the blame where ever you want. I want America to get through this. What pray tell do you want except justification of your idealogy???
Third. Do yourself a favor. Go to the Concord Coalition website or ANY non partisan source of information...open your eyes.
wd, the reason that means-testing wasn't an original part of the SS program is 2-fold. A) The life-expectancy during that era was actually LESS THAN the retirement age and B) the country wasn't at that time facing the demographic nightmare that it is today.......And you also have to realize, something that might have been a good idea in 1932 isn't necessarily a good idea now. For any society to survive, it has to be nimble and adjust to changing circumstances. Strict adherence to dogma/orthodoxy is not only intellectually costly, it is also dangerous thing to boot.
Marcus: Does any of this strike a chord with you???
No.
HR, you summed it up perfectly (albeit perhaps unintentionally). These politicians are putting their careers ahead of what is (IMO) best for the country. The Republicans played a monstrous role in creating this 14 trillion dollar debt (and, no, I'm not at all absolving the Democrats here). They started 2 wars (I agree that going after al Qaeda was the just thing to do - nation-builing, though, not so much), put forth a humongous tax break, and created a brand new entitlement program. And they put every single bit of it on the credit card. I'm sorry, but for them to now take revenues (even tax expenditures) completely off the table is just flat-out irresponsible. Ross Perot really needs to make a comeback here. I'm kidding, but I'm not.
I'm not happy the way conservatives are talking about "tax revenues" either. Closing loopholes, dropping deductions, and making our tax system less complex is a good thing to do and would raise revenue. It doesn't help to have conservatives out there calling them tax hikes. I wouldn't support raising tax rates.
Well said Heathen. Eliminating loopholes/some deductions does not grow the size of the government and also has an eye toward reducing overall marginal tax rates for everyone...surely a "win-win" scenario. Moreover, a lot of these tax cuts are actually spending measures...especially the ones where the government pays individuals for behavior it wants. These should be easy targets for a sensible austerity program. I know the economy is tender, but I think a very small rise in marginal rates would help close the gap a little more while being scarcely noticible. These increases could easilly be mandated for debt reduction only and not spending...
Marcus, you sound like a Republican to me. There are pro-choice and not anti-gay Republicans (if you are those things... I believe Will has said he is). I'm not suggesting you leave... I'm just wondering why you're staying.
Austerity? That is EXACTLY what this "tender" economy does NOT need... but it is EXACTLY what a Republican would suggest.
We need to RAISE taxes and cut out the austerity BS talk. Instead of cutting parograms that benefit the middle class and the poor we need to INCREASE their funding.
This is the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans, and you're on the other side.
Will, let's be realistic here. The debt ceiling debate is purely political. There is no ideology at stake for either party. It's been raised 79 times before. It was raised 7 times under George W. Obama voted against it when he could score political points. Purely political.
What Republicans are doing is using the debt ceiling debate as leverage on their preferred ideological issues: smaller government and reduced spending.
If we can agree on these basics, you're unfair to condemn Republicans for using political tactics on a political issue. You may disagree with the tactics, but don't accuse them of being political (e.g. protecting their careers) when that's what the issue is all about.
Right now, Republicans are employing any political tactic they can think of to win on the ideological issues: primarily to get Democrats to stop spending our money. I can't condemn them for that.
wd, the "austerity" that Marcus, I, and dmarks is talking about is having the WEALTHY pay a little more for their Medicare and getting a little bit less of their social security and MAYBE (if that alone doesn't do it) raise the retirement 6-12 months. These are not mean-spirited/anti-poor suggestions, dude.
Will: the "austerity" that Marcus, I, and dmarks is talking about is having the WEALTHY pay a little more for their Medicare and getting a little bit less of their social security...
So you communicated with Marcus and dmarks before posting your comment to confirm that what you're saying accurately represents their point of view?
Assuming that is the case, you're all wrong about what the word means.
Austerity measures "[target] development projects, welfare, and other social spending... [Austerity also seeks to increase user fees on] port and airport fees, and train and bus fares [etc]... In many cases, austerity measures have been associated with significant decline in standard of living".
The common understanding of "austerity" is spending cuts to social programs and increases in user fees that target the middle class and the poor.
Austerity IS mean-spirited/anti-poor. Don't use the word if that isn't what you mean.
Something interesting for my tax the rich to prosperity friends.
I recently returned from a too short business trip to Singapore.I work in the gaming industry and the company I work for has a small intrest in a Singapore casino.Having had the opporunity to travel to numerous countries I can honestly say I've never seen anything comparable to Singapore.Some of the lowest crime rates in the world,one of the lowest incidents of violent crime and one of the cleanest places I've ever seen.
Now for my...lets soak the rich friends.
Singapores personal tax rates.
First 20,000......0%
Next 10,000.......3.5%
Next 40,000.......8.5%
Next 160,000......17%
Above 320,000.....20% Top Rates
Capital Gaines tax...0%
Estate Tax abolished in 2008
Flat 15% tax for non-residents.
Sinapores corporate tax rates
Corp.profit up to 360,000...8.5%
Corp.profit above 360,000...17.5
And to top it off in 2010 Sinapores saw a GDP growth of 14.5%.I think ours was under 2%.
WD's take on this should be interesting.
Oh yea....the unemployment rates in Singapore is 1.9%.
And in the semi-socialist countries you lefties always want us to be like.
Finland 7.8%
Sweden 7.7%
France 9.5%
Greece 15.0%
Spain 20.9%
Yep...it seems like socialism and cradle to grave care sure works.
From your source, wd............."In economics, austerity is a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided.[1] Austerity policies are often used by governments to reduce their deficit spending[2] while sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to pay back creditors to reduce debt."............It says "reduction in the amount of benefits and services provided". It doesn't say that the austerity HAS TO focus on the poor and working class. And since my proposal (and I believe that Marcus and dmarks are also on board) calls for means-testing on the wealthiest Americans, I feel that I have used the word appropriately. Nice try, though.
But, Russ, the people in these socialistic countries are "happy".
"happy" yea,I'd bet that 20% in Spain are happy...dont have to work yet still receive benefits...I'm guessing the 80% who are picking up the tab may just be getting a bit pissed off.Its kind of strange...thats what the far left wants for America.
Will: It says "reduction in the amount of benefits and services provided". It doesn't say that the austerity HAS TO focus on the poor and working class... I have used the word appropriately. Nice try, though.
Sure, nice try on your behalf. The definition doesn't mention any focus at all. Which implies there isn't one. The cuts and tax increases are across the board.
Most people who know what the word "austerity" means know when you use it you're talking about screwing the middle class and poor.
You want your own definition? Go ahead, but don't expect most people to agree with your re-definition.
Rusty: WD's take on this should be interesting.
Rusty says jump and I'm supposed to say "how high"? No dice Rusty.
WD aka Johnny One Note;
1) You think I sound like a Republican? If you think that I passed the test...must mean I'm a reasonable person... WOOHOOO!!!
2) I am in fact supporting President Obama's position...I have echoed at least in part, points that that he is laid out...
Deficit/Debt reduction should be a long term policy. It should be predicated on entitlement reform, revenue increases and spending cuts. On the tax side, the President has mentioned closing loop holes, reducing deductions and simplifying the tax structure as ways of raising needed revenue.
3) I know what austerity means...I have a college degree. I don't think I need a clinical definition from you to understand it. We have a 14 Trillion dollar debt problem...solving it will require austerity...sorry if you don't like the concept.
Rusty said: "Yep...it seems like socialism and cradle to grave care sure works."
Socialism most often means cradle to early grave. Assad of Syria and Col. Ghadaffi are both socialist leaders. Since socialism is a very effective way to concentrate wealth and power into the fewest hands, it is not surprising that most of these dictators, warlords and the like are socialist.
And they happen to strongly fit all definitions of fascist, except for the "right wing" part of the definitions. This is because they tend to quote Marx or use a lot of his ideas. (If Hitler himself had bothered to quote Marx while he did what he did, you'd have a lot of so-called intellectual lefists supporting him, as they support Lenin, Stalin and Mao.)
WD said: "So you communicated with Marcus and dmarks before posting your comment to confirm that what you're saying accurately represents their point of view?"
What Will said is close enough that I agree with it. Responsible austerity means reducing handouts to well-off special interests (i.e. public employee unions) so the money can be instead used to improve services or go to people who actually need it.
You have no idea what you are talking about, like when you claimed Will agreed with you when you were agreeing with Bill Maher that handicapped children were sub-human and lying about Rahm Emanual calling the mentally disabled "f**king retards".
"We need to RAISE taxes and cut out the austerity BS talk. Instead of cutting parograms that benefit the middle class and the poor we need to INCREASE their funding."
Actually, we need to eliminate handouts, giveaways to the middle class. Increase funding for the poor, of course. But there is no need at all for government to waste money on those who can provide for themselves.
A lot of money can be saved by getting rid of pointless giveaways to the non-needy.
In Michigan, we have a millionaire who is receiving food stamps. We need means testing for ALL of this. Why would anyone oppose means testing unless their main goal was to increase the power and control of ruling elites.
On the topic of means testing (something I still support), I came across this interesting piece from the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday: Beware of Means Tests as a Way to Reduce the Budget Deficit.
I'm not creating my own definition, wd. I'm implementing the one that you provided. And I think by "most people", you're probably referring to the talking heads at MSNBC.............Oh, and, yes, the definition also referred to tax increases, something that I've also advocated for the top wage-earners (people making over $300-400,000).
When the facts aren't on your side... you make up your own facts. One of the ways the Right goes about this is to redefine words.
Will did it, to transform "austerity" into a policy that targets the wealthy (yea, right), and dmarks has done it to redefine Socialism into a policy that concentrates wealth in a few hands (It actually does the exact opposite).
I didn't transform it at all. The definition doesn't specify who bears the burden. My God, wd, I though that you'd be pleased that I WASN'T targeting the poor.
Will: My God, wd, I though that you'd be pleased that I WASN'T targeting the poor.
I thought your thing was worrying about the impossibility of taxes being jacked up too high on the wealthy... now you're trying to convince me that you're gung-ho for an austerity program that exclusively targets them?
I'm for raising the top rates to 40%, eliminating the special treatment for capital gains, and reducing the mortgage deduction cap from a million to $500,000. Only in your world, wd, would a person like me be considered "pro-rich".
40% is too low.
There's no need to plunder more than 40% of people's money. Realize how counterproductive this can be. Excessive confiscatory tax rates can force investors to move their money offshore, and invest in foreign stock markets, foreign ventures, and foreign companies instead.
"Only in your world, wd, would a person like me be considered "pro-rich"."
True. Very true. A pro-rich person would favor 0% taxation, or perhaps favor subsidies (government gifts) to the rich. A proposal to forcibly take more than one-third of their investment-related income is, any way you slice it, anti-rich.
Anti-rich? Fine. I think Will has a good idea here. He's taking a lot of things into account, and seems a lot less driven by errors caused by pure ideology.
The way that I see it, dmarks, if the government can't get by on 40% of what a person makes, then that government really needs to reassess it's priorities/get a life.............P.S. I would, though, consider a 42.5% rate on income of over, say, 10 million a year as a trade-off to totally eliminate the corporate income tax (yet another regressive form of taxation). Consider, I'm saying.
I agree with Robert Reich who says we must tax the rich. According to the wise Mr. Reich, "if the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits".
Robert Reich believes we should raise taxes to "70 percent on incomes over $15 million, to 60 percent on incomes between $5 million and $15 million, and to 50 percent on incomes between $500,000 and $5 million". This sounds very reasonable to me.
Income inequality is on the rise and it's only going to get worse. This is THE major flaw of capitalism... it concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. Just because some are able to game the system to acquire great wealth does not mean they have "earned" it. Get real. There is NOTHING anyone can do that is worth tens of millions of dollars or more.
The people (through their elected representatives) are WELL within their rights to redistribute this money back to the people. It isn't "plundering", its economic justice.
In my world a person who doesn't support Mr. Reich's necessary and reasonable proposal is indeed "pro-rich".
WD: "I agree with Robert Reich who says we must tax the rich."
Well, Will agrees that we must tax the rich. So do I. So did George W. Bush. Those who oppose taxing the rich are indeed on the fringes, and there are none of them around here.
"Income inequality is on the rise and it's only going to get worse. This is THE major flaw of capitalism"
It's not a flaw. It's not even a problem.
"Get real. There is NOTHING anyone can do that is worth tens of millions of dollars or more"
Yes there is. Proven by the fact that people DO earn this, not by gaming the system, either. You are now acting petty and jealous. Keep your nose out of others wallets, ok?
"The people (through their elected representatives) are WELL within their rights to redistribute this money back to the people."
The thing is, this money is already owned by the people. When the government gets involved, they take it from the people and keep it themselves.
"It isn't "plundering", its economic justice."
Justice? When the most powerful in society swipe even more from people just because they can, not because they committed any crimes or wrongs? Sorry, this has nothing to do with justice.
You are being very greedy, nosy, and jealous. I'm not rich, but I am no busybody. I don't get bent out of shape because I have one car and Joe Millionaire has 10. It's simply not my business.
The only injustice being discussed is the government stealing from people not for any good reason, but just because it can, and out of a desire of the ruling elites to cut people and down and show who's boss.
"In my world a person who doesn't support Mr. Reich's necessary and reasonable proposal is indeed "pro-rich"."
Reich's proposal is unnecessary, unreasonable, and greedy. It would kill investment, force people to move money out of the country, and kill jobs. That's on planet Earth, not your world.
"Jealousy" and "nosiness" are how Conservatives justify EXTREME greed that causes a much too-large percentage of our population to have to live in poverty.
High taxation on the wealthy has absolutely nothing to do with increasing the power of the so-called "ruling elites", it has to do with economic justice for those who have no power... the poor.
The wealthy elites want their taxes kept low (which includes the corporate tax) because money is power.
This is a life and death issue for the poor... and I think it's clear what side of the issue dmarks falls on. He thinks any number of deaths due to poverty are acceptable, so long as the rich get to keep their excessive riches... and power.
I think the only reason dmarks dislikes the so-called "ruling elites" is because they were ELECTED by the people. He believes all power should be wielded by those who were not elected... the wealthy elites (this is fascism, btw).
WD said: "High taxation on the wealthy has absolutely nothing to do with increasing the power of the so-called ruling elites"
There's no quotes needed around ruling elites. They are not so-called: they rule. Civics 101. And high taxation, in which the rulers take our property by force, has everything to do their power.
"it has to do with economic justice for those who have no power... the poor."
Tell this to the ruling elites who vote themselves more and more exhorbitant pay raises, and cave in to public sector unions to make the members richer while cutting the actual services to the poor.
"This is a life and death issue for the poor... and I think it's clear what side of the issue dmarks falls on."
I'm on the side of the ruled. and this includes the poor.
"He thinks any number of deaths due to poverty are acceptable"
Not at all. The ruling elites are taking a record amount of our money, enriching themselves. Yet they use it for their own perks first, and bloat the bureaucracy, while letting crumbs fall down to the poor.
Any deaths due to poverty are not because the people are spending too little in taxes. In fact, we are turning over a record amount of money to the rulers.
The deaths are due to the ruling elites focusing on their own power and giving handouts to the well off (raises to government union workers) instead of focusing on what should be the #1 mission: helping the needy.
You yourself have flat out opposed means testing so we don't waste entitlement money on the well-off. I'd rather see this money only go to the poor and needy, and more of it.
I am strongly in favor of increasing aid to the poor while zeroing out the medicare, SSN handouts to the well off and wealthy.
"I think the only reason dmarks dislikes the so-called "ruling elites" is because they were ELECTED by the people."
They are elite, and they rule. No, I dislike them because of a proper and civically informed distrust for authority. "Question authority" is a good idea.
"He believes all power should be wielded by those who were not elected... the wealthy elites (this is fascism, btw)."
Actually, all definitions of fascism include concentration of wealth in the hands of ruling elites. This is exactly what you favor. In opposition to what I favor: a robust private sector (the people) in which each of us has power over our own lives.
Ruling elites are a fact of the human condition. Our founding fathers created a Bill of Rights to reign them in, and they did so wisely.
This is needed to counteract the ignorance of those who believe that because our rulers are elected, they can run slipshod over our rights and control our lives.
dmarks: There's no quotes needed around ruling elites. They are not so-called: they rule. Civics 101.
The United States has representatives, not rulers. You must have skipped out of "Civics 101" that day.
dmarks: ...the ignorance of those who believe that because our rulers are elected, they can run slipshod over our rights and control our lives.
You're talking about the rights of corporations and the wealthy, right? Wait, I know that you're going to deny that, but your previous comments say otherwise.
WD said: "The United States has representatives, not rulers."
Let's check the definition, shall we?
"1. A person exercising government or dominion."
Oops. You aren't correct on this. The manner of how a ruler is chosen never negates or has an effect on whether or not he or she is a ruler.
WD: "You're talking about the rights of corporations and the wealthy, right?"
No, I was talking about the rights of the people. The ruled. And this includes people who have earned wealth. I never mentioned corporations. But I do defend individuals who are members of orgnanizations such as corporations from having their free speech rights stripped away. As I defend all people from this.
"Wait, I know that you're going to deny that but your previous comments say otherwise."
No, I deny it because my previous comments say this too. You are flat-out wrong again. I am defending the rights of ALL the people, even the small minority of the rich. ALL of whom are subject to the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Hey, dmarks, the Congressional Progressive Caucus must be "pro-rich", too. The highest tax-rate that those folks put forth is only 49%.
Perhaps too Robert Reich is pro-rich, as he wants the government to plunder a mere80% of rich people's property, instead the necessary 160% needed for "justice".
(seriously, since when is it "justice" for those with the power and the guns to forcibly take away more and more from the people they rule...just because they can?)
Post a Comment