"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of pros

[MikeK]

I agreed until you hit the part I added emphasis too, "methodical redistribution"?

how would you see that happening? In execution I mean.

Inasmuch as the super rich and the major corporations they control have managed to effectively distribute the wealth of the middle class to themselves over the past three decades via a sequence of deregulations and other sophisticated legal maneuvers I believe the most direct and equitable means of redistributing that money is via confiscatory progressive taxation to finance massive infrastructure repair and construction projects, thereby creating thousands of well-paid jobs and restoring to the Nation what has been taken from it by stealthy maneuvering.

Tit for tat!

In order to fully understand the justice in what the foregoing implies it is important to first understand the difference between earning and [/i]exploitive maneuvering. There is no way to "earn" the kind of excessive wealth which has elevated the super-rich to the level of a neo-aristocracy.

really? and why not?

The explanation involves a semantic pivot:

If you watched the Sopranos series you know that the word used in Mafia organizations in reference to money obtained via criminal methods and directed upward in the various Mob hierarchies is "earning." I.e., a goon who operates a profitable extortion racket and turns over a significant percentage of his take to his Don is thought of as a good "earner." I have a different idea of what the word earning means and I'm sure you do, too.

Someone who works for a living or operates a legitimate business is earning. But I don't consider exceptional wealth which is acquired by exploiting the work of others, or by operating a usurious enterprise, or by leveraging stock market schemes, etc., as being earned income -- in spite of the language of capitalism.

Reasonable wealth can be earned -- in the accepted sense of the word. Exceptional wealth cannot.

 

[Wicked Jester]

i knew abe lincoln ..... abe lincoln was a friend of mine, barrak obama, you are no abe lincoln...

well, no... but then again, Abe Lincoln wouldn't be a republican now.

but to the "point" of the thread... the middle class doesn't exist without protection and a society where businesses are unfettered looks like Dickens' England.

Or should we go back to the days of sweat shops so as not to somehow offend corporatists?

Abe Lincoln would have NEVER told a proud 13 year old kid that flying an american flag was 'just silly".....But, you would.....In fact, YOU DID!

Fuckin' libs!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you mean all or nothing like in the OP? Trying to make rich people poor rather than just pay your previous tax rate?

Paying taxes for the purpose of funding good government is one thing.
However, the Left looks upon taxation as a way to punish success and achievement. To level the imaginary playing field.
The idea that confiscatory taxation for the purpose of creating socialism out of capitalism is a failed concept.
Not once or never has a modern society been able to tax itself into prosperity.
This idea of "fairness" is modern day liberalism's mantra of "getting even".
It covers the liberal idea of the zero sum game with an excuse to redistribute wealth and use it the way THEY see fit.
If government used our tax dollars wisely, stayed within the parameters of a balanced budget, cut government waste, I'd be all for reasonable and equitable graduated tax rates. Ability to pay.
However, in the halls of the US Capitol we have politicians on both sides of the aisle that have an insatiable desire to spend money without considering the consequences of their actions. The laws of unintended consequences are violated more times than the speed limit on an Atlanta urban interstate. Which is to say A LOT!
Quite frankly we're sick of watching our hard earned money being thrown down a rat hole. We're tired of failed policies being tried anew with the expectation of a different result.
We are about get nailed with the largest tax increase in the history of the nation. A bad idea in light of the staggering economy.
Politicians such as Harry Reid (D-NV) have been quoted as saying "we cannot afford tax cuts right now. we need the additional $700 billion in revenue"...That's a lie.
There is no additional money. That figure comes from an estimate of anticipated revenue should the tax cut be allowed to expire. And what does Sen Reid want all that money for anyway?.
He won't answer THAT question.
If this does not get through your spend and tax bias, so be it.
Our money is NOT your money. Hands off.

What does Reid want the money for? Let's start with paying for the 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq that has burdened this nation with enough 'unintended consequences' to fill the ocean with money and fill the graveyards here and in Iraq. How about money to pay for that bloated government fiasco; fatherland security.

President Obama gave tax cuts to the people who need them, the middle class. Trickle down has had 30 years to create jobs for Americans. It has created jobs for China, India and 3rd world countries with slave wages. It is time for the elite who were given the privilege of tax cuts to pay us back.

You reference an opinion piece from a UK publication as a reply?
Please.
What were you thinking? That you could just slide by with a non-answer?
The way government works is it always can find ways to spend and then tax.
SO the war argument does not wash.
I suppose you are under the impression that if a federal or state agency found a company that could sell them paperclips a bit cheaper, you believe it when the politicians say "they saved money"...Yeah, right.
Government does not need more money. Government, politicians need to learn fiscal discipline. There are lots of cuts that can be made. Lots of unneeded so called "nonessential employees" that can be released from the government payroll.
The federal government is sitting on millions of acres of land which is being used for nothing that can be sold.
Or how about telling the enviro-nazis to go piss up a tree and open up the land where oil exists for production?
Yeah, there's a whole laundry list of stuff government could get off the taxapayer's backs. However most of the stuff too politically correct to do. Sucks.

 

[georgephillip]

Would you agree all governments have to levy taxes?

"All governments have to levy taxes – that is, they have to tax somebody. Naturally, the super-rich would like this tax to be shifted off their shoulders onto those who have to work for a living. In diametric opposition to Adam Smith and other putative “founding fathers” of “free market” neoliberalism, the super-rich want to shift taxes off “free lunch” economic rent – off interest, dividends, rents and capital gains – onto wage-earners.

"This tax shift already has been underway for the past thirty years. It has doubled the proportion of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rents and capital gains) enjoyed by the wealthiest 1 per cent, from a reported one-third in 1979 to an estimated two-thirds of the U.S. total today."

Is there some reason you feel obligated to shoulder your share of the tax burden AND Warren Buffett"s?

Flat Tax

 

[thereisnospoon]

Would you agree all governments have to levy taxes?

"All governments have to levy taxes – that is, they have to tax somebody. Naturally, the super-rich would like this tax to be shifted off their shoulders onto those who have to work for a living. In diametric opposition to Adam Smith and other putative “founding fathers” of “free market” neoliberalism, the super-rich want to shift taxes off “free lunch” economic rent – off interest, dividends, rents and capital gains – onto wage-earners.

"This tax shift already has been underway for the past thirty years. It has doubled the proportion of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rents and capital gains) enjoyed by the wealthiest 1 per cent, from a reported one-third in 1979 to an estimated two-thirds of the U.S. total today."

Is there some reason you feel obligated to shoulder your share of the tax burden AND Warren Buffett"s?

Flat Tax

This is just one source that counters Buffet's assertions. may HIS taxes are lower than his secretary, but Buffet cannot account for the facts that belie his pro high tax rantings. sechttp://www.american.com/archive/2008/october-10-08/america-has-a-highly-progressive-tax-system/
Warren Buffet is the same as all the other wealthy liberal elites. He is interested solely in the accumulation of wealth for himself. He looks upon the people as the great unwashed masses. He and those like him see the rest of us as having too many freedoms. Buffet is so arrogant and so self absorbed he actually believes that we are far to stupid to run our own lives. Does anyone think this guy reads about some poor schlub losing his house to foreclosure and says "awwwww"?. No Guys like Buffet think " that stupid bastard shouldn't have been allowed to own a house in the first place. I SHOULD OWN all the property and she should live where I TELL him!"

 

[daveman]

Would you agree all governments have to levy taxes?

"All governments have to levy taxes – that is, they have to tax somebody. Naturally, the super-rich would like this tax to be shifted off their shoulders onto those who have to work for a living. In diametric opposition to Adam Smith and other putative “founding fathers” of “free market” neoliberalism, the super-rich want to shift taxes off “free lunch” economic rent – off interest, dividends, rents and capital gains – onto wage-earners.

"This tax shift already has been underway for the past thirty years. It has doubled the proportion of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rents and capital gains) enjoyed by the wealthiest 1 per cent, from a reported one-third in 1979 to an estimated two-thirds of the U.S. total today."

Is there some reason you feel obligated to shoulder your share of the tax burden AND Warren Buffett"s?

Flat Tax

Is there some reason you feel Warren Buffet should be obligated to shoulder your share of the tax burden AND his?

 

[MikeK]

 

[Bfgrn]

Paying taxes for the purpose of funding good government is one thing.
However, the Left looks upon taxation as a way to punish success and achievement. To level the imaginary playing field.
The idea that confiscatory taxation for the purpose of creating socialism out of capitalism is a failed concept.
Not once or never has a modern society been able to tax itself into prosperity.
This idea of "fairness" is modern day liberalism's mantra of "getting even".
It covers the liberal idea of the zero sum game with an excuse to redistribute wealth and use it the way THEY see fit.
If government used our tax dollars wisely, stayed within the parameters of a balanced budget, cut government waste, I'd be all for reasonable and equitable graduated tax rates. Ability to pay.
However, in the halls of the US Capitol we have politicians on both sides of the aisle that have an insatiable desire to spend money without considering the consequences of their actions. The laws of unintended consequences are violated more times than the speed limit on an Atlanta urban interstate. Which is to say A LOT!
Quite frankly we're sick of watching our hard earned money being thrown down a rat hole. We're tired of failed policies being tried anew with the expectation of a different result.
We are about get nailed with the largest tax increase in the history of the nation. A bad idea in light of the staggering economy.
Politicians such as Harry Reid (D-NV) have been quoted as saying "we cannot afford tax cuts right now. we need the additional $700 billion in revenue"...That's a lie.
There is no additional money. That figure comes from an estimate of anticipated revenue should the tax cut be allowed to expire. And what does Sen Reid want all that money for anyway?.
He won't answer THAT question.
If this does not get through your spend and tax bias, so be it.
Our money is NOT your money. Hands off.

What does Reid want the money for? Let's start with paying for the 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq that has burdened this nation with enough 'unintended consequences' to fill the ocean with money and fill the graveyards here and in Iraq. How about money to pay for that bloated government fiasco; fatherland security.

President Obama gave tax cuts to the people who need them, the middle class. Trickle down has had 30 years to create jobs for Americans. It has created jobs for China, India and 3rd world countries with slave wages. It is time for the elite who were given the privilege of tax cuts to pay us back.

You reference an opinion piece from a UK publication as a reply?
Please.
What were you thinking? That you could just slide by with a non-answer?
The way government works is it always can find ways to spend and then tax.
SO the war argument does not wash.
I suppose you are under the impression that if a federal or state agency found a company that could sell them paperclips a bit cheaper, you believe it when the politicians say "they saved money"...Yeah, right.
Government does not need more money. Government, politicians need to learn fiscal discipline. There are lots of cuts that can be made. Lots of unneeded so called "nonessential employees" that can be released from the government payroll.
The federal government is sitting on millions of acres of land which is being used for nothing that can be sold.
Or how about telling the enviro-nazis to go piss up a tree and open up the land where oil exists for production?
Yeah, there's a whole laundry list of stuff government could get off the taxapayer's backs. However most of the stuff too politically correct to do. Sucks.

The war argument does not wash? What do you think, war is free? There will be costs incurred for decades. Things like taking care of disabled veteran for 50-75 years. A whole shit load of military equipment that has to be replaced and military presence in Iraq for years to come.

Opinion piece? It was a study written by Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, ForMemRS, FBA, an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979). He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank.

BTW, On October 3rd Stiglitz and Bilmes testified before the House Veterans Affairs Committee

As a matter of fact, Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes have an update...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 5, 2010; Washington Post

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration’s 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war’s broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Moreover, two years on, it has become clear to us that our estimate did not capture what may have been the conflict’s most sobering expenses: those in the category of “might have beens,” or what economists call opportunity costs. For instance, many have wondered aloud whether, absent the Iraq invasion, we would still be stuck in Afghanistan. And this is not the only “what if” worth contemplating. We might also ask: If not for the war in Iraq, would oil prices have risen so rapidly? Would the federal debt be so high? Would the economic crisis have been so severe?

The answer to all four of these questions is probably no. READ FULL ARTICLE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even George W. Bush questioned his second round of tax cuts for the rich. His first Treasury Secretary was there...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul O'Neill George Bush's first Treasury Secretary

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand, He said, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due." … O'Neill was speechless.

“It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

“He asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.

“He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

“Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says Suskind. “Don’t waver.”

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What does Reid want the money for? Let's start with paying for the 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq that has burdened this nation with enough 'unintended consequences' to fill the ocean with money and fill the graveyards here and in Iraq. How about money to pay for that bloated government fiasco; fatherland security.

President Obama gave tax cuts to the people who need them, the middle class. Trickle down has had 30 years to create jobs for Americans. It has created jobs for China, India and 3rd world countries with slave wages. It is time for the elite who were given the privilege of tax cuts to pay us back.

You reference an opinion piece from a UK publication as a reply?
Please.
What were you thinking? That you could just slide by with a non-answer?
The way government works is it always can find ways to spend and then tax.
SO the war argument does not wash.
I suppose you are under the impression that if a federal or state agency found a company that could sell them paperclips a bit cheaper, you believe it when the politicians say "they saved money"...Yeah, right.
Government does not need more money. Government, politicians need to learn fiscal discipline. There are lots of cuts that can be made. Lots of unneeded so called "nonessential employees" that can be released from the government payroll.
The federal government is sitting on millions of acres of land which is being used for nothing that can be sold.
Or how about telling the enviro-nazis to go piss up a tree and open up the land where oil exists for production?
Yeah, there's a whole laundry list of stuff government could get off the taxapayer's backs. However most of the stuff too politically correct to do. Sucks.

The war argument does not wash? What do you think, war is free? There will be costs incurred for decades. Things like taking care of disabled veteran for 50-75 years. A whole shit load of military equipment that has to be replaced and military presence in Iraq for years to come.

Opinion piece? It was a study written by Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, ForMemRS, FBA, an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979). He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank.

BTW, On October 3rd Stiglitz and Bilmes testified before the House Veterans Affairs Committee

As a matter of fact, Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes have an update...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 5, 2010; Washington Post

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration’s 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war’s broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Moreover, two years on, it has become clear to us that our estimate did not capture what may have been the conflict’s most sobering expenses: those in the category of “might have beens,” or what economists call opportunity costs. For instance, many have wondered aloud whether, absent the Iraq invasion, we would still be stuck in Afghanistan. And this is not the only “what if” worth contemplating. We might also ask: If not for the war in Iraq, would oil prices have risen so rapidly? Would the federal debt be so high? Would the economic crisis have been so severe?

The answer to all four of these questions is probably no. READ FULL ARTICLE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even George W. Bush questioned his second round of tax cuts for the rich. His first Treasury Secretary was there...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul O'Neill George Bush's first Treasury Secretary

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand, He said, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due." … O'Neill was speechless.

“It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

“He asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.

“He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

“Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says Suskind. “Don’t waver.”

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

This does not answer the question regarding fiscal responsibility on the part of the federal government. No one, especially those on the political left wishes this issue to be discussed. Why? Because the discussion would lead to accountability. And no politician wishes to be held accountable with regard to spending.
Now, the issue of taxation, budgets and spending always leads to a battle of class. Why is that? Somple. Those on the political left are more likely to be living off the public dole. So it is in their best interest to see entitlement spending continue to be untouched. Additionally, the Left is in full support of union labor. Now as we all know, all non-exempt government employees are represented by unions. Unions ,I might add are fully entrenched on the side of the democrat party.
Thirdly. The left sees the accumulation of wealth and that wealth used to purchase things those on the left are less likely to afford. To them, this is not fair. To those on the Left, the playing field must be leveled. Confiscatory taxation is one way the Left can use to "get even".
What is shockingly absent from liberal thinking is the fact that no matter how much the government takes from the wealthy, it makes no difference in the individual lives of those who support confiscatory taxes. Such thinking is illogical. To desire something so intensely which results in no change in the conditions of those who desire drives logical individuals to the point of exasperation.
Yet, every major election cycle the Left rolls out the class envy card as a plank in it's campaign platform.

 

[Bfgrn]

You reference an opinion piece from a UK publication as a reply?
Please.
What were you thinking? That you could just slide by with a non-answer?
The way government works is it always can find ways to spend and then tax.
SO the war argument does not wash.
I suppose you are under the impression that if a federal or state agency found a company that could sell them paperclips a bit cheaper, you believe it when the politicians say "they saved money"...Yeah, right.
Government does not need more money. Government, politicians need to learn fiscal discipline. There are lots of cuts that can be made. Lots of unneeded so called "nonessential employees" that can be released from the government payroll.
The federal government is sitting on millions of acres of land which is being used for nothing that can be sold.
Or how about telling the enviro-nazis to go piss up a tree and open up the land where oil exists for production?
Yeah, there's a whole laundry list of stuff government could get off the taxapayer's backs. However most of the stuff too politically correct to do. Sucks.

The war argument does not wash? What do you think, war is free? There will be costs incurred for decades. Things like taking care of disabled veteran for 50-75 years. A whole shit load of military equipment that has to be replaced and military presence in Iraq for years to come.

Opinion piece? It was a study written by Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, ForMemRS, FBA, an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979). He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank.

BTW, On October 3rd Stiglitz and Bilmes testified before the House Veterans Affairs Committee

As a matter of fact, Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes have an update...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 5, 2010; Washington Post

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration’s 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war’s broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Moreover, two years on, it has become clear to us that our estimate did not capture what may have been the conflict’s most sobering expenses: those in the category of “might have beens,” or what economists call opportunity costs. For instance, many have wondered aloud whether, absent the Iraq invasion, we would still be stuck in Afghanistan. And this is not the only “what if” worth contemplating. We might also ask: If not for the war in Iraq, would oil prices have risen so rapidly? Would the federal debt be so high? Would the economic crisis have been so severe?

The answer to all four of these questions is probably no. READ FULL ARTICLE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even George W. Bush questioned his second round of tax cuts for the rich. His first Treasury Secretary was there...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul O'Neill George Bush's first Treasury Secretary

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand, He said, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due." … O'Neill was speechless.

“It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

“He asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.

“He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

“Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says Suskind. “Don’t waver.”

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

This does not answer the question regarding fiscal responsibility on the part of the federal government. No one, especially those on the political left wishes this issue to be discussed. Why? Because the discussion would lead to accountability. And no politician wishes to be held accountable with regard to spending.
Now, the issue of taxation, budgets and spending always leads to a battle of class. Why is that? Somple. Those on the political left are more likely to be living off the public dole. So it is in their best interest to see entitlement spending continue to be untouched. Additionally, the Left is in full support of union labor. Now as we all know, all non-exempt government employees are represented by unions. Unions ,I might add are fully entrenched on the side of the democrat party.
Thirdly. The left sees the accumulation of wealth and that wealth used to purchase things those on the left are less likely to afford. To them, this is not fair. To those on the Left, the playing field must be leveled. Confiscatory taxation is one way the Left can use to "get even".
What is shockingly absent from liberal thinking is the fact that no matter how much the government takes from the wealthy, it makes no difference in the individual lives of those who support confiscatory taxes. Such thinking is illogical. To desire something so intensely which results in no change in the conditions of those who desire drives logical individuals to the point of exasperation.
Yet, every major election cycle the Left rolls out the class envy card as a plank in it's campaign platform.

Fiscal responsibility? What party enacted PAYGO? It was enacted in 1990 and expired in 2002. In Fiscal Year 1991, the Federal deficit was 4.5% of GDP, and by Fiscal Year 2000, the Federal surplus was 2.4%. Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP decreased each year from FY1991 through FY 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%.

After the expiration of PAYGO, budget deficits returned. The federal surplus shrank from $236.2 billion in 2000 to $128.2 billion in 2001, then a $157.8 billion deficit in 2002—the last year statutory PAYGO was in effect. The deficit increased to $377.6 billion in 2003 and $412.7 billion in 2004. The federal deficit excluding trust funds was $537.3 billion in FY2006. In the first 6 years of President Bush's term, with a Republican controlled Congress, the federal debt increased by $3 trillion- wiki

What party has re-enacted PAYGO? On February 12, 2010, Obama signed statutory PAYGO rules into law.

WHO Lives off the public dole?

Red State Welfare
Why the "Real America" should quit complaining about pork and earmarks

When Ronald Reagan took office, the gross national debt sat at 33.4 percent of the annual GDP. The public debt stood at 26.1 percent. That was the total accumulated national debt — the New Deal, World War II, Vietnam, all of it.

During the cheery Decade of the Gipper, gross debt skyrocketed to 55.9 percent and public debt increased to 42 percent.

Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent.

In comes George W. Bush, and whoosh — so much for the trend line. Eight years later, 55.9 percent had risen to a whopping 86.1 percent, the public debt had risen to 54.6 percent … and then came the meltdown of the summer and fall of 2008.

The spin at the Republican National Committee, when you bring all this up, is “OK, we learned our lesson and won’t make the same mistakes again. This time we mean business.”

You conservatives are calling for smaller government and apparently the idea is winning you votes. So, OK, here’s an idea: How about a statute that limits the amount of federal money going to states to the amount of taxes paid out by residents of those same states? That would have the effect not only of saving money, but making government smaller.

Before you answer, consider: America has its “productive states,” and, well, all the rest. States that aren’t so, er … productive. The bad news for you conservatives is that almost every one of the states on the public dole is a red state — your states, the “Real America” states.

As a result, “Real Americans” are relying for their survival on the godless, socialist, perversion-on-every-block blue states, such as — egads! — California (which receives only 78 cents back for every dollar its residents pay in) and New York (only 79 cents back on the every tax dollar sent to Washington). And all the while, these liberal citizens have to put up with nonstop rants directed at them by your cadre of mindless pundits.

As you might imagine, this arrangement isn’t going down well in Blueland.

You see, the 18 bluest-of-the-godless-blue states receive on average only 87 cents in federal tax dollars for every tax dollar paid. On the other hand, the 18 reddest states average a tidy $1.37 for every dollar mailed off to the IRS. Such a deal!

Let’s get specific: California, which we know is broke, subsidizes that sanctimonious buckeroo state, Alaska ($1.84 on the dollar), and doesn’t get so much as a howdy-doo for their trouble.

My guess? Even should you “conservatives” win back temporary control of the Congress and finally face the reality of governing, when push comes to shove you will resist any cuts to most of the so-called social safety net (and related sources of federal largess). You pretty much have to because if you don’t, what’s going to happen back home?

Indeed, if past is prologue, your new red state members of Congress will use those same arcane Senate rules to keep the “good times” coming, while voting against all social and economic policy proposals that smack of “secular humanism” — you know, godless things, like energy legislation, health care reform, Wall Street reform, regulation of Big Oil, Big Tobacco and Big Agriculture, etc.

Subsidizing the red states

 

[JFK_USA]

You also won't multiply wealth and can end a nation by legislating it primarily to those at the very top at the expense of the majority. There's been no better time in America than right now to be extremely rich.

Warren Buffet is in a higher tax bracket than his secretary, but even he doesn't think it's right that he ends up paying a lower net tax (after write-offs and such) rate than she does. I hardly think making him pay a more equal percentage would put him out of wealth and her in to prosperity.

This kind of quote gives me pause because to me it implies that the poor are poor because they don't work hard...and that if you are living a prosperous life than you must have earned it. I think it's also misleading because it assumes that half of the population sit on their butts and are only there to take from the other half. This simply just isn't the case.

I can understand not wanting to give someone something for nothing, but for every impoverished person that takes advantage of the system there is another financially prosperous person on the other end of the spectrum that is just as worthless and is making little to no societal contribution. In either case, it's not 50/50...these are just the extremes.

Rather, I think that the vast majority of people fit in the middle. They get up to go do something with their lives each day and would feel terrible about their self worth if they were to just sit around all day and take, take, take from others.

Personally, the hardest I ever worked in my life was when I had to work minimum-wage and was living at or below the poverty line. It's such a difficult place to move up from because it's tremendously hard to catch a break, jobs at that pay-scale aren't usually as flexible (to allow time go take educational classes, do things to improve your skill-set, take your kids to their activities, etc), and you have to spend every waking minute of the day busting your butt just to survive.

I think having legislation in place to take care of those who need it is important to the health of a society. Switzerland is a great example of this. For example, the minimum wage equates to around $20/hr, maternity leave is 100% for 4 months, and you can get 80% of your salary if you become unemployed. There are still uber-rich wealthy people, but the bottom is lifted up which makes the middle class and society more resilient and very strong. Since all jobs pay more, people choose work more by whether or not they like it rather than how much it pays. Consequently, the general population is happier and less stressed...and health care costs and crime goes down because people are healthier and are assured of having basic needs met.

It's one of the biggest fallacy of Liberals is that we don't want people to work hard. We do. We actually support people who work in labor intensive jobs by making sure that their businesses take care of them. I was shocked that Rand Paul comes out and was against regulation of mines in Kentucky when its those very regulations that keeps the workers as safe as possible. Also regulation on construction sites that put workers safety first and foremost.

Business do whatever helps their bottom line. But they convince many uneducated people of their policy with ridiculous rhetoric. "Death Panels." "Obama is killing Grandma" "Anti-business" "Radical Socialist" and other things gear toward people without the Intellectual capacity to understand that these statements are not true. Fox News feed on stupidity and it works for them. So it gets them votes and they do nothing to help them but they act like they will because they are pro-life or against gay marriage. Seriously many people vote just on those issues.

 

[kyzr]

A few factoids:
1. The wealthy moved 14,000 US factories overseas because of cheap labor
2. The wealthy built 100,000 new factories overseas because of cheap labor
3. The unemployment rate for the under 30 is over 25%
4. The top 10% of incomes own 90% of everything

IMHO the top 10% of incomes should pay for the unemployment of the ones they caused to be unemployed, AND they should pay the tax increase because they caused the IRS to have less income.

BOTH parties enabled the current economic mess.

 

[rightwinger]

They certainly aren't Starving as they gobble up junk food while watching their big screen TVs.

There are serious issues with the status of the poor in our society - lack of food is not one of them.

This is one of my favorite right wing tactics. Take attention away from the rich by blaming the poor. Its the old "Poor people drive Escalades" myth. Selling the mistruth that the poor are living high off the hog.

I personally,am more concerned with the working poor. Those Americans who work 40-50 hours a week and have less and less to show for it. People who would lose everything if they become sick, people who must assume tens of thousands in debt to send their kids to college, people who wonder if they should pay the doctor bill or the rent.

Used to be, you could support a family on a high school education and one spouse working. That American dream has vanished as the wealthy have become richer and the standard of living has declined

You reference that time a lot. I grew up then and we never ever had a new car, much less borrowed money for one. My parents never bought "as much house as we could afford" and we didn't upgrade based on Dad getting a raise. It was a small house, below average size and we had a big family. "Work hard and get a scholarship" was the college plan. We had a boat, one that Dad got when he bet the guy he could get it running - "if you can fix it, you can have it." 1 TV, no cable, none of the new gadgets. All this is possible on one income today with a typical family.

My dad with a Highschool education, put four kids through college without accumulating debt. I paid my way through college working summer minimum wage jobs. He never had to worry about helathcare bills. If the kids got sick, the insurance paid for it...no deductable, no threshold, no copays. His house is the same size as mine but on a larger lot. He never had a new car...but I went 20 years without buying a new car.
Toys? Yes we have more cellphones, computers and TVs. Every generation has more toys than the previous generation
Americans work harder than they did in the past. A married couple now works 80 hours to get the same standard of living you used to get for 40 hours. And during this time the rich have gotten richer.....I wonder why?

 

[asterism]

This is one of my favorite right wing tactics. Take attention away from the rich by blaming the poor. Its the old "Poor people drive Escalades" myth. Selling the mistruth that the poor are living high off the hog.

I personally,am more concerned with the working poor. Those Americans who work 40-50 hours a week and have less and less to show for it. People who would lose everything if they become sick, people who must assume tens of thousands in debt to send their kids to college, people who wonder if they should pay the doctor bill or the rent.

Used to be, you could support a family on a high school education and one spouse working. That American dream has vanished as the wealthy have become richer and the standard of living has declined

You reference that time a lot. I grew up then and we never ever had a new car, much less borrowed money for one. My parents never bought "as much house as we could afford" and we didn't upgrade based on Dad getting a raise. It was a small house, below average size and we had a big family. "Work hard and get a scholarship" was the college plan. We had a boat, one that Dad got when he bet the guy he could get it running - "if you can fix it, you can have it." 1 TV, no cable, none of the new gadgets. All this is possible on one income today with a typical family.

My dad with a Highschool education, put four kids through college without accumulating debt. I paid my way through college working summer minimum wage jobs. He never had to worry about helathcare bills. If the kids got sick, the insurance paid for it...no deductable, no threshold, no copays. His house is the same size as mine but on a larger lot. He never had a new car...but I went 20 years without buying a new car.
Toys? Yes we have more cellphones, computers and TVs. Every generation has more toys than the previous generation
Americans work harder than they did in the past. A married couple now works 80 hours to get the same standard of living you used to get for 40 hours. And during this time the rich have gotten richer.....I wonder why?

The working class didn't have near as many toys as they do these days, nor did they spend the same percentage of their income on them.

The rich have gotten richer because typically they are the ones that know how to manage money. Plenty of the poor have learned and lots of them are now rich also. The middle class and poor that never bothered to learn? They got poorer.

A working class head of household can still realize the same lifestyle of the 60s and 70s.

 

[rightwinger]

You reference that time a lot. I grew up then and we never ever had a new car, much less borrowed money for one. My parents never bought "as much house as we could afford" and we didn't upgrade based on Dad getting a raise. It was a small house, below average size and we had a big family. "Work hard and get a scholarship" was the college plan. We had a boat, one that Dad got when he bet the guy he could get it running - "if you can fix it, you can have it." 1 TV, no cable, none of the new gadgets. All this is possible on one income today with a typical family.

My dad with a Highschool education, put four kids through college without accumulating debt. I paid my way through college working summer minimum wage jobs. He never had to worry about helathcare bills. If the kids got sick, the insurance paid for it...no deductable, no threshold, no copays. His house is the same size as mine but on a larger lot. He never had a new car...but I went 20 years without buying a new car.
Toys? Yes we have more cellphones, computers and TVs. Every generation has more toys than the previous generation
Americans work harder than they did in the past. A married couple now works 80 hours to get the same standard of living you used to get for 40 hours. And during this time the rich have gotten richer.....I wonder why?

The working class didn't have near as many toys as they do these days, nor did they spend the same percentage of their income on them.

The rich have gotten richer because typically they are the ones that know how to manage money. Plenty of the poor have learned and lots of them are now rich also. The middle class and poor that never bothered to learn? They got poorer.

A working class head of household can still realize the same lifestyle of the 60s and 70s.

The rich got richer because of the golden rule..

"He who has the gold...makes the rules" Our laws are written by the rich, for the rich. They have done nothing but make it easier to accumulate and protect wealth. CEOs in the US make more than CEOs in other countries. They do not work harder and they do not produce better results
Meanwhile, the working class has been sold on trickle down economics being their ultimate savior.

JFK once said that a rising economic tide lifts all boats.....now it only lifts the yachts

 

[asterism]

My dad with a Highschool education, put four kids through college without accumulating debt. I paid my way through college working summer minimum wage jobs. He never had to worry about helathcare bills. If the kids got sick, the insurance paid for it...no deductable, no threshold, no copays. His house is the same size as mine but on a larger lot. He never had a new car...but I went 20 years without buying a new car.
Toys? Yes we have more cellphones, computers and TVs. Every generation has more toys than the previous generation
Americans work harder than they did in the past. A married couple now works 80 hours to get the same standard of living you used to get for 40 hours. And during this time the rich have gotten richer.....I wonder why?

The working class didn't have near as many toys as they do these days, nor did they spend the same percentage of their income on them.

The rich have gotten richer because typically they are the ones that know how to manage money. Plenty of the poor have learned and lots of them are now rich also. The middle class and poor that never bothered to learn? They got poorer.

A working class head of household can still realize the same lifestyle of the 60s and 70s.

The rich got richer because of the golden rule..

"He who has the gold...makes the rules" Our laws are written by the rich, for the rich. They have done nothing but make it easier to accumulate and protect wealth. CEOs in the US make more than CEOs in other countries. They do not work harder and they do not produce better results
Meanwhile, the working class has been sold on trickle down economics being their ultimate savior.

JFK once said that a rising economic tide lifts all boats.....now it only lifts the yachts

No, it lifts all boats that don't have holes in them. The problem for most of the working poor and most of the middle class declining is that they refuse to bother taking ownership of their own success.

I say this while realizing that there are millions of working poor that have done things correctly and still can't catch a break. However, the massive government programs created to solve that problem haven't been effective.

 

[rightwinger]

The working class didn't have near as many toys as they do these days, nor did they spend the same percentage of their income on them.

The rich have gotten richer because typically they are the ones that know how to manage money. Plenty of the poor have learned and lots of them are now rich also. The middle class and poor that never bothered to learn? They got poorer.

A working class head of household can still realize the same lifestyle of the 60s and 70s.

The rich got richer because of the golden rule..

"He who has the gold...makes the rules" Our laws are written by the rich, for the rich. They have done nothing but make it easier to accumulate and protect wealth. CEOs in the US make more than CEOs in other countries. They do not work harder and they do not produce better results
Meanwhile, the working class has been sold on trickle down economics being their ultimate savior.

JFK once said that a rising economic tide lifts all boats.....now it only lifts the yachts

No, it lifts all boats that don't have holes in them. The problem for most of the working poor and most of the middle class declining is that they refuse to bother taking ownership of their own success.

I say this while realizing that there are millions of working poor that have done things correctly and still can't catch a break. However, the massive government programs created to solve that problem haven't been effective.

You are talking about over 50% of the population that the right wing is calling fuck-ups. It is your fault that you were laid off, it is your fault that you can't afford college for your kids, it is your fault that healthcare costs so much

 

[boedicca]

RW can't tell the difference between blaming others and an individual accepting responsibility for his lot in life and doing something about it.

 

[rightwinger]

RW can't tell the difference between blaming others and an individual accepting responsibility for his lot in life and doing something about it.

The American worker is doing something about it. They work harder, are more educated and are the most productive workers on earth..

And they have less to show for it

 

[boedicca]

That is true for some workers, but not all. The unemployed are much more likely to have careers in construction or manufacturing as opposed to the information and service sectors.

You would also benefit from learning about how much of the median family's income is gobbled up in taxes since the 1950s. The ratio of income taken by the government has more than doubled. That is why people have less money.

The Tax Foundation - The Tax Burden of the Median American Family