Boortz referred to estate tax proponents as "followers of Karl Marx"
During the September 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, right-wing radio host Neal Boortz attacked defenders of a federal estate tax, stating, "[A]s much as it disturbs the followers of Karl Marx, yes, I want the death tax over with." When co-host Alan Colmes responded, "I'm a Marxist now, I see," Boortz responded, "I want it all gone," holding up a copy of the book he co-wrote with Rep. John Linder (R-GA), The FairTax Book (ReganBooks, August 2005). The book relies on several deceptive claims to advocate replacing the federal tax system with a national retail sales tax, as Media Matters for America has documented.
In addition to Colmes, others whom Boortz would presumably deem "followers of Karl Marx" for their support of the estate tax include President Theodore Roosevelt (who proposed the first estate tax in a 1906 address to Congress) and steel mogul Andrew Carnegie (who wrote the following about inheritance taxes in his book The Gospel of Wealth: "Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest").
From the September 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: So they should not have -- are you in favor of tax cuts? You want to have more tax cuts at a time -- you want to cut the state taxes at a time when they're still struggling to pay for it and help the rich? Is that what you want to do?
SEAN HANNITY (co-host): Absolutely.
BOORTZ: As much -- as much as it disturbs the followers of Karl Marx, yes, I want the death tax over with.
COLMES: I'm a Marxist now, I see. OK.
BOORTZ: As a matter of fact, Alan, glad you mentioned that. I want it all gone, OK? [Holds up a copy of The FairTax Book]
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
From the list of measures intended to foment the rise of the proletariat to power in the Communist Manifesto:
Obviously, there is a long way from an inheritance tax to the abolition of all rights of inheritance; this is another obvious example of ideological hyperbole. But, this is probably what Boortz meant.
Note that it follows from this same logic that anyone who believes in the progressive income tax, public schools, or the abolishment of child labor in factories is also a "follower of Marx", a statement that is true as far as it goes.
The truth is, in spite of a very high trash/cool ratio, some of Marx's ideas were good, including a number of things that most of us take for granted today.
Greg Shenaut
This is an interesting list. Much like the teachings of Jesus, conservatives will pick and choose the ones that fit their ideological agenda at the time. I especially find #8 interesting: "Equal obligation of all to work."
I guess that makes Shannon, Dave and Tommy Marxists, since they constantly admonish poor people to "GET A JOB". Of course, there may be a valid point here, in relation to the ESTATE tax. If we abolish it, fewer billionaires will have to work. Yay!
I also find #10 interesting: "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form."
No wonder the NeoClowns want to strangle public education; it's Marxist! Heck, let's close the public schools and put those urchins to work! Capitalism needs cheap labor!
Bush better hurry...he's running out of time to build his bridge to the 19th century.
Excellent outline...
Ultra-insider Halliburton is an example of #8 - Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state.
On the same continuum are other mega-DOD insiders, like GE/Lockheed (Cheney's are intimately involved on both sides).
Slightly less blatant are Big Oil, Big Pharm, Big Media, etc.
[link to reclaimdemocracy.org]
[link to www.thirdworldtraveler.com]
There's lots of money behind this "Death Tax" revolt. A lot of really really rich people really want it bad.
Abolishing the estate tax would further concentrate the nation's wealth in the hands of the super-rich at a time when the distribution of wealth is already more unequal than at any point since the 1920s
*******************************************
This is the real impetus behind the left and their desire to keep the estate tax. The above is directly from the website Sagra wants us to look at - their goal is;
INCOME REDISTRIBUTION - pure and simple.
So much better to sit idly by and allow the super rich to purchase any public policy that they like. They're rich! They deserve to run the country! It's not like we have a democracy or anything silly like that.
Why do you Sagra, have such blind disdain for anyone who is "rich" or is "affluent"? Why isn't that just as distasteful to you as slamming poor people?
You are nothing if totally inconsistent?
I think rich people are fabulous. I just don't think they should use their wealth to buy public policy.
But what really frightens me is when the wealthy buy public policy that gives them even more wealth and even more ability to buy public policy in the future. That's the greatest danger to our democracy that we will ever face.
It's also not a new concern:
Talking point: liberals are jealous of rich people... but should thank rich people for being the backbone of capitalism, and should stopping sucking on the government teat, slacker lazy unAmerican unpatriotic losers that they are...
Reality: This is not the issue, this is a red herring. The issue as Sagra says is the fusion of big corps and big government threatens the democracy. The connection, for example, of Saddam & 9-11, and Saddam & Al Quaida, and Saddam & yellow cake, was rained upon the USA by not just Clear Channel and "independents" like O'Reilly, not just Murdoch, but by GE/NBC, ABC, CBS, and all of the big ten. And it worked.
We're not talking baby seals here. We talking about our democracy, and it's fine to disagree that it's relevant. Just better to actually stay on topic if possible. Diversion is always a sign of desperation in debate.
So again, to be clear, here's the true issue:
"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." George Washington, letter 1779
"It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war." Abraham Lincoln (1864)
"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust." Thomas Jefferson
This is a "true conservative" issue, clearly not one of concern to so-called "compassionate conservatives". And it's one America, were it not for the oppression of free speech by the Big Ten, could rally around: 80% believe that big companies have too much power in influencing government policy, politicians, and policy makers in Washington. 69% believe that public opinion has too little power in Washington.
Thanks for the excellent quotes, Laura. Lincoln's quote came even before Corporations gain additional legal standing through the 14th Amendment and Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Great documentary if you're interested in more corporate history: [link to www.thecorporation.com]
Sagra, When you are deeply concerned about the FOUNDATIONS of our democracy, e.g., restoring / CONSERVING them - you might be a TRUE conservative! Let's take back the label.
Income redistribution, no. Fairness, yes. Death tax has never existed. Dead people aren't taxed. You see, the estate tax is just an income tax. Mr. Hilton dies and leaves a bagillion dollars to his heirs, Paris and the respectable Hilton daughter. Paris, someone without much of the right wing's self reliance, now has income of a bagillion dollars. That bagillion dollars should be taxed as income for the heirs just as any income I have made is subject to it. The right wing seems to think that income tax is a proletariat thing. Only poor people should pay taxes. Rich people with trust funds would not be taxed on dividends or inheritance. The only way they see taxing is to for wage and salary earners. Basically, tax only those that actually work and make America great. Marx may agree with us on the inheritance tax, but Hitler had things in common with right wingers who hate gays. I would never compare right wingers to Hitler based on that one agreement, so why would Boortz do that to us. Oh yeah, he has an audience that wants to have every argument being black and white. Nuance is for whimpy, long haired intellectuals. Plain and simple.
Also, Boortz needs to ask this question? Who in this list are/were communists; the Congress of 1797, Abe Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet. Each believed in the inheritance tax as a means of preventing an aristocraxy.
Tommmmmmmy.....
Inconsistency...thy name is Bush.
Remember Bush wanted to give 15 years of taxes "back" to businesses.....
Notice that he was curiously silent about doing the same for regular taxpayers.
Note that the "free-lunch" conservatives attack the states for having gasoline taxes.......yet are quiet when gasoline prices have tripled under Bush.
So the difference must be the "Bush Gas Tax" (more than $2.20 per gallon).....and Rove/Bush were whining about a Kerry idea years before of hiking gas tax by "up-to" 50 cents a gallon.
Bush has made the US more like the Czarist Russia (extreme wealth and extreme poverty) AND the Soviet Union (the perks of the Communist Party --- and then the dregs for everyone else)....
So Bush and his Pioneers are the idealogical followers of Marx.
The estate tax only affects the wealthiest two percent of Americans, so why all the bitching by the right? They are showing their true colors by sticking up for the mega-wealthy.
Tommy, even Bill Gates, Sr. and Warren Buffet are in favor of the estate tax, and their descendants stand to pay the largest share of the tax when either they or their children die.
If we end this tax, where will the lost $75 billion in federal revenue come from? More debt spending. This process is not sustainable Tommy, and you know it.
If we end this tax, where will the lost $75 billion in federal revenue come from? More debt spending. This process is not sustainable Tommy, and you know it.
*************************************
The lost revenue should come by way of reduced spending, not debt spending. I know this is an anathema to many here, but we spend way more than necessary. Force the government to live within it's means, and leaner. They have plenty of our money, they don't need more.
What would you reduce? What would you keep? You see we can all agree on generalities. The devil is in the details. Besides, it seems pretty anathema to the right wingers to balance a budget or reduce it.
The days of the liberals being pinned with uncontrolled growth of government are long gone. Surely you don't see the Republicans as the fiscally conservative or responsible party do you?
What would you reduce? What would you keep?
*****************************
Start with all the pork in the recent transportation bill, much of it went to Republican's districts. I don't give them or Bush a pass on this huge deficit we have, not a single spending bill has been vetoed under Bush.
If you think raising taxes is the answer to a thriving economy and more tax revenue, think again because it is indeed not.
The catch phrase "pork" means nothing. What "pork" would you reduce? Funny that you didn't mention the right wing when you pointed your finger at the left. But I will take your addendum.
If you think that trickle down economics is the best thing, think again because it is indeed not.
Didn't mention the "right wing" - are you crazy? I just said it was Republicans who are spending us into oblivion. How much clearer can I be?
The term pork is very applicable - if you are so confident that the politicians know better how to spend your money than you do, then every extra penny you have should go back to them.....if you don't, you are a hypocrit.
Well, putting a 3000 page document called the federal budget up for approval by a national referendum would be a HIGHLY inefficient process and nothing would get done that way. The public has to modify the election process to get more accountable politicians into office. Publicly financed elections anyone? Paper ballots anyone?
Relax tommy, why call me crazy? I am just trying to have a rational discussion with you. If you want to call names and such, have at it.
I was going by what you said. Point to me where you mentioned right wingers before I pointed that out to you. To quote, "The lost revenue should come by way of reduced spending, not debt spending. I know this is an anathema to many here, but we spend way more than necessary. Force the government to live within it's means, and leaner. They have plenty of our money, they don't need more."
Your other comment is not valid. The government has certain responsibilites that, yes, they know how to spend my money better. For instance, I know nothing about purchasing a nuclear class submarine or paving an interstate. So, call me what you will, I leave it up to the government. I watch them closely though. The canard of me sending them my whole paycheck is sophmoric at best. Will you deny any and all federal benefits including highways, dams that produce electricity, the security provided by our defense? That dog ain't gonna hunt.
Dog?
Let me be clear, again. The government's primary function is to protect it's people, it's citizens - not to fund endlessly every program and then reallocate more funding when that program is failing or has outlived it's usefullness.
Protect its citizens from what? Just from foreign militaries? Or from the inherent inefficiencies, biases, and shortcomings of the market? How about protecting its citizens from lack of shelter, hunger, lack of health care, lack of clothing, and lack of education? I would say those areas are just as important as protection from foreign armies.
Inefficiencies from the market in housing, CLOTHING, etc....
Sounds exactly like Socialism and income redistribution to me? If that's what you are advocating, at least you are honest about it.
And what is wrong with socialism? We have two kinds of socialism in the public discourse. The first is the knee jerk repulsive socialism that the right wing has built into the consciousness of its followers, and the other is the true meaning and nature of socialism. If you would like to discuss the latter, fine. I am not a socialist, I just think that the government should provide health care, child care, retirement, transportation, communication services to its people. Then let the market be in charge of TVs, gumballs, and porno, etc.
blueblood,
You can advocate Socialism if you'd like, it is your right. I don't share that point of view. The less government involvement in our lives the better, they don't need to be leveling the playing field - it discourages entreprenuership and hard work and fosters laziness and dependence, in my opinion.
It is not my responsibility to pay for child care for someone else's child - if you cannot afford if yourself, do not have the child - one example of the inequity and inherent unfairness of Socialism.
It is your responsibility as a citizen of a nation to do your part to insure that EVERY inhabitant has a chance at a successful life, since that is in the nation's interests and you are a member of that nation. Ayn Rand was and is wrong. Looking out for yourself and only yourself damges society.
Americans just don't get it do they? To the homeless man they say get a job; to the woman who cannot find an affordable place to look after her child, they say don't have a child; to the down on his luck man who was laid off and receives welfare and unemployment benefits they say quit being lazy. Now I see why this country will fail. God forbid Tommy had to spend a minute in the shoes of anyone less fortunate than himself, maybe then his attitudes might change.
blueblood,
Why do you live in such a heartless and reprehensible country? If I thought, or maybe even wished? the country I live in would "fail" as you put it, I would look to live elsewhere - quickly.
I live here because I have no choice. Yes, Tommy, not all of us have the ability to pack up their bags and gain citizenship in another country. We are not as fluid a populace as you might think. There are other factors that bind us down. Besides, as an undergraduate college student, I HAVE NO MONEY!!!! I can't just up and enroll in the University of Toronto.
I live here because I have no choice. -by blueblood
***
Blueblood if the only reason you live in the country is because you believe you have no choice then I would suggest you reevaluate the choices you HAVE made and readjust them. If you are able bodied there is no reason why you should limit yourself to living where you so distain the country and its people. Put off college, get a job, save some money and make your move. When you get where you are going hopefully they will have the social programs you desire and you can live in peace with your benevolent adopted country and people.
I would guess the real reason is not a lack of choice but the opportunities afforded to you in this country that has you living here.
lost, I would not agree with his answer, and he might change that if given the cahnce. But don't you think the go somewhere esle argument is illogical? And couldm't that be used against the right wingers if it is logical? For instance, if you think that the country is not moral enough, shouldn't you find somewhere else that conforms to your beliefs?
How about this. We love america and have a right to express our opinons. We can point out that our country has some problems in the effort to correct them. That is why we stay. by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
***
That may be why you stay and many others who want to help improve and make positive changes but unfortunately there are those who stay because they claim to “have no choice” and denigrate Americans as “not getting it” as though American walk in lock step and as if they are not Americans themselves.
People like you who love this country but see it could benefit from change is what America is all about…those others they are just, sorry to say, anti-American.
***
lost, I would not agree with his answer, and he might change that if given the cahnce. But don't you think the go somewhere esle argument is illogical? And couldm't that be used against the right wingers if it is logical? For instance, if you think that the country is not moral enough, shouldn't you find somewhere else that conforms to your beliefs? by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
***
abc…the difference in your position and his is glaring. And yes if a right winger were to make a sweeping statement American’s are immoral and they only live here because they have no choice I would be happy to help them work out a plan for their exodus. I think we have to make a distinction between people looking for honest change and those who truly want to bash this country and its people IMHO.
By the way, thank you for your kind words in the other post.
Well, let's end in agreement on that then. Have a good night.
And what choices did I make that forced me to stay here? Being born into a poor family? This country has not presented me with any opportunities that allowed me to be where I am today. The healthcare industry has nearly bankrupted my family. Finding a new job, give me a break. Exactly where should I get a job? Is Taco Bell paying good wages in Canada? I doubt it.
And what choices did I make that forced me to stay here? Being born into a poor family? This country has not presented me with any opportunities that allowed me to be where I am today. The healthcare industry has nearly bankrupted my family. Finding a new job, give me a break. Exactly where should I get a job? Is Taco Bell paying good wages in Canada? I doubt it. by blueblood
***
Excuse me blueblood, but I understood you to say you were in college. I assume that meant you had funds to pay for college OR you were the recipient of some type of financial assistance, scholarships or student loans. If you have the money to pay for college then that was your choice to use your money for that purpose. If you abhor living here so then you could change your choice and use those funds to move else where to a country you do appreciate and seek an education and work there. If you have financial assistance or student loans then I would say those are helping hand ups that this country does to give their citizens a chance to grab at the opportunities to be found in this great country…and would it hurt to acknowledge that fact. So it appears that you made choices that have you living here and taking advantage of the opportunity for higher learning we have in our country.
As far as what type of job, well you are an intelligent person perhaps you could put some thought and energy into your job hunt. I don’t know why any able bodied seemingly intelligent person would choose to live in such obvious misery that you claim you “have no choice”.
You know what blueblood, this country may not be perfect and we all may have difference of opinions in how things should be done; but this is better then any other place out there. Our systems may be flawed but they are better then the alternatives out there. Our people are some of the best and we are there for each other in times of needs and there are so many true American heroes that we take for granted. I have no problem with dissent (heck, I do enough of it) and nothing is perfect but people like you who take this country for granted or even hold it and its people in disdain as you do are nothing but ungrateful whiners. IMHO
I do not receive public assistance for my college education. Anyways, Pell Grants were the brainchild of progressives like me. The Bush administration refuses to increase the levels of Pell Grants even as inflation decreases their real purchasing power. My funding for college comes from private scholarships I received by graduating as valedictorian of my high school class just two years ago. I am LUCKY to have a grandmother who chips in as well. Others are not so lucky lostlogic. Can't you see that?
blueblood,
Congratulations on your hard work and being named valedictorian!
It would be interesting to find out who gave you your scholarships and how your grandmother has the money to help finance your college education.
I may be wrong, but my guess is the money is there for you because there are some people somewhere, who through their hard work, ingenuity, and luck, probably were the type of capitalists you seem to disparage.
It is fine to be a progressive, but I would think that a valedictorian would not be so closed minded as to profess, as you did in an earlier post, that:
blueblood wrote: "I was afforded in this country were not fought and died for by conservatives or capitalists, but by unions, the weak, the disenfranschised. All the benefits of this nation we take for granted were advocated and implemented by progressives. We made this country great, the robber barons would be content to revert back to the 1890s if given the choice."
Someone with your intelligence should be able to see that your gross generalizations such as those above, remove you from serious consideration by those who disagree with you.
What if I said, "all benefits in this country were advocated and implemented by conservatives. We made this country great." What would you think? Obviously this generalization is false, the same as yours.
One last point, can you define for me who the robber-barons are? Can you tell me one, (now living,) who has advocated going back to the 1890's?
Don't get caught up in silly hyperbole. It weakens your arguments.
It is fine to believe in you political philosophy and be a "progressive". I've enjoyed your comments.
If it isn't a bother, I am interested as to just what you think being a "progressive" means.
Thanks,
My grandmother INHERITED her wealth, she did not earn it. She is a Republican by the way.
And when I say that the robber barons would be content to revert this country back to the 1890s, I mean those who would abolish the progressive income tax, social security, the minimum wage, public education, and workplace and ergonomics regulations. Do any of these positions sound familiar to you? They should, because the GOP has had the above issues on the chopping board for YEARS.
Under my state's Republican governor, my little borther's school district lost $500,000 because of a "budget problems" but the GOP-led legislature did not find it hard to raise MILLIONS for a new football stadium. Just another example of how the right-wing is destroying the future for our children.
tommy,
Why do you live in such a crooked and irresponsible country? If I thought, or maybe even wished? the country I live in would "fail" as you put it, I would look to live elsewhere - quickly.
I was so entralled with the america love it or leave it canard that I failed to see the part where you inferred that he wished his country would fail. Dang if you aren't a walking talking point memo. How about this. We love america and have a right to express our opinons. We can point out that our country has some problems in the effort to correct them. That is why we stay.
It is your responsibility as a citizen of a nation to do your part to insure that EVERY inhabitant has a chance at a successful life, since that is in the nation's interests and you are a member of that nation. Ayn Rand was and is wrong. Looking out for yourself and only yourself damges society. -by blueblood
***
The question is how do you define “chance” and how do you define “successful”? And what do you think our responsibility is to the person who does not want to take the opportunities afforded to them? Where does personal responsibility and ambition come in to play in your theory.
I posted in a response to Tommy that I thought his point was correct in theory but the practical application is where he runs into problems. I say the same to you it sound great to lift everyone up and hold them there on an even playing field but this benevolent theory does not hold up to practical application.
There has to be some middle ground and that is what is in the best interest of this nation. Your own choices and actions will make the difference in your chance at success if we lend a hand to boost you up but then it is up to the individual to take it from there.
lost, I don't know you but you make very good sense. I have used government assistance, public schools, social security when my parents died, and the earned income tax credit. Society gave me a hand up. I now have an education, a good paying job, and pay my fair share of taxes. That is the way I see it works best. I think you said it best though and bears repeating, "...if we lend a hand to boost you up but then it is up to the individual to take it from there."
I never said that personal ambition and motivation does not factor into the equation. My point is that you can have all the ambition that you want, but it you come from a rural farm family your chances of getting into Harvard or a Rhodes Scholarship are pretty slim compared to the rich kid from the city who went to the elite prep schools. LostLogic, you really need to study sociology. Government needs to give EVERYONE a base fom which they can succeed and a net to make sure they never fall through the cracks of society like the residents of NO did. Call it naive if you want. I call it caring, and American.
I never said that personal ambition and motivation does not factor into the equation. My point is that you can have all the ambition that you want, but it you come from a rural farm family your chances of getting into Harvard or a Rhodes Scholarship are pretty slim compared to the rich kid from the city who went to the elite prep schools. LostLogic, you really need to study sociology. Government needs to give EVERYONE a base fom which they can succeed and a net to make sure they never fall through the cracks of society like the residents of NO did. Call it naive if you want. I call it caring, and American. by blueblood
***
I never said you did say ambition and personal responsibility didn’t factor. I asked in your view where do they factor? And you have not answered as of yet.
You don’t need to go to an elite college to make it in this world and going to one in turn does not assure success. I did not go to an elite college nor did my husband and we consider ourselves successful. And to answer your question before you ask: I was lucky I came from an upper middle class family, my husband however did not and I have never heard him say he was not offered enough of a base from which to launch his own success.
By the by my degree is in sociology so I guess I have a basic understanding…it has gotten me this far.
Blueblood --
Two words on the Rhodes scholarship thing, "Bill Clinton".
You can advocate Socialism if you'd like, it is your right. I don't share that point of view. The less government involvement in our lives the better, they don't need to be leveling the playing field - it discourages entreprenuership and hard work and fosters laziness and dependence, in my opinion. It is not my responsibility to pay for child care for someone else's child - if you cannot afford if yourself, do not have the child - one example of the inequity and inherent unfairness of Socialism. by tommy
***
I agree with you in theory Tommy but I think there is a problem when you put this theory into practice. Nothing you say here is incorrect IMO. But…
What do you do with those who have had a catastrophic incident in their life and are in a position where they genuinely need assistance? And those people who are just lazy and lacking ambition, simply not interested in pulling themselves up (yes, they do exist) they are also our problem…why?...what happens to OUR quality of life if assistance is not provided? Will crime increase? Will our neighborhoods be inundated with homeless and crime? Do we allow people in need of medical care to just not receive it because they don’t have the $...what happens when we turn our back on them…does disease spread…
Tommy, it is just not as simple as you stated. We don’t live in a bubble and other people and their lives and hardships do impact our own lives. I have yet to hear anyone address what this world of “small” government looks like.
I do not favor socialism but it is undeniable that the government does need to play a role for all our benefit.
Kensyan economics. overnment does what the private sector can't or won't. The private sector does what the government can't or won't. Pretty basic stuff. Besides, even the founding fathers weren't against taxes, just taxation without representation.
Dog? A quoloquial term that means, in this situation, you would not deny any and all benefits from the government, just as I would not give all of my paycheck. I thought it was a pretty common phrase.
But you still have not gone through the budget to tell us what you would cut. Since you can do much better than the government, you should offer a solution rather than just complain.
How about a 10% cut in every Federal discretionary spending program not associated with our national security? A good start.
You mean any non-DOD or non-DHS program right. You narrowly define national security. YOu just don't seem to consider that there is pork in the DOD and DHS. All social programs have waste and abuse, just not the DOD and DHS. Throw more money at the problem? I thought that is what you despised Tommy. Besides, Bush has cut MUCH more than 10% from many non-DOD DHS domestic programs.
tommy, The DOD is the biggest pork spender around. They just lost a billion dollars in Iraq. $500 toilet seats. Besides, don't you think we should pay for our security now? Did you know that the first inheritance tax was to secure our nation from the French in 1797?
How clear can I be?
ALL GOVT. FUNDED PROGRAMS NEED TO BE LOOKED AT AND EVALUATED. You asked where I would cut, I told you and you still whine.....you never wanted an answer in the first place, did you?
Tommy, Why do you insult me? I am not whining about anything. I asked you what you would cut and you gave me philosophical, actually, ideolaogical responses of cut the pork from the transportaion bill and anything non-security related. A very politician type response. I asked for specifics and you gave generalities. So under your logic, I too agree that we need to cut whatever we can. 10%, hell let's go for 100%. After all, you have stated that the government can't be trusted. So you would have no problem giving a crook a dime, but not a quarter? Now let's find out what we can cut. It is easy to hide behind philosphy or ideology, but to come up with an answer would be much harder.
How about cutting waste wherever it lies and we fund those programs that are needed. It is much more rational that slash and burn, shock and awe.
How about cutting waste wherever it lies and we fund those programs that are needed.
****************************
Great idea!
The only place left in government that has not already been DRASTICALLY reduced is the DOD or DHS. The only cost savings would come from significant reductions in those two departments.
The tax cut and domestic program cut policy of Bush II led to this disaster in New Orleans. Actions do have consequenses Tommy. Can't you see that.
What domestic programs has Bush cut? Are you serious? Spending under this President has gone up more than any other in modern history.
OK, food stamps, medicare, Army Corps of Engineers, pell Grants, the list goes on and on.
The spending increases are due to the supplementals for the Iraq War and the MASSIVE increases in DOD and DHS spending, NOT social welfare programs increases.
Total spending has gone up under the President's term. However, that does not mean that every program went up. For instance, the levee projects near NO. They were cut. Not only is it important to keep a lean budget, but to appropriate funds where they are needed.
About half of the Federal budget is for Social Security. A quarter goes to defense. The remaing quarter goes to everything else.
If we eliminate the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the top 2% of income tax payers and get corporations to ACTUALLY pay their tax obligations, the government is looking at several hundred BILLION dollars of additional revenue that could be used to rebuild the Gulf Coast, invest in alternative energy sources, or reduce the massive federal debt. No tax raises here. Just return the rates to their pre-2001 levels. As I recall, this country did not fall off the map economically when taxes were at their pre-2001 levels.
blueblood,
You are assuming that any tax increase will go directly to rebuilding New Orleans - in theory this sounds wonderful. But we all know that money "earmarked" never seems to make it to it's intended - look at all the lotteries that go to education and how that was sold to us all.....instead the ed's budget was reduced and spent elsewhere.
So, history tells us not to trust the politicians with more of our money - there are too many hands in the pie. Let them make the tough choices with integrity and honesty and cut the fat out of the spending pork that is rampant everywhere.
If Congress simply adopted the "Pay-Go" rule there would be no funding problems. The Hurricane Reconstruction supplemental would have had to be financed before it could have been passed under this rule. Problem solved.
blueblood,
Pay-Go, whatever? It doesn't matter. The entire point is a philosophical one. The government has plenty of money and pouring more down to them is a waste. We are taxed and taxed plenty, they can learn to live within their means and make tough spending decisions instead of funding every program or problem that comes down the pike. It is called responsibilty and our elected officials should be able to level with us, spend wisely and efficiently. The only way, and I mean only way, is to refuse to give them any more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
So inadequate levees in NO is just a problem like any other that does not need funding? What about the thousands that die in this country due to lack of health insurance? Just another problem that doesn't need money? Where the hell are your priorities bud?
blueblood,
Look, you and I have different philosophies regarding the government's role - that is fine, I respect your point of view.
As for the levees, that is a problem that goes back nearly 40 years - a city below sea level, of course it needs to be looked at and evaluated and funded if necessary. As for health care, I don't believe govt. has a role in that - health care is not a right guaranteed by anyone. Admittedly our health care needs reforming but put the government in that, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster and a bureaucratic nightmare. No way!
Oh, and the private sector runs heatlh-care in this country in an EXTREMELY efficient manner, right? No bureaucratic red tape or high administrative costs there, right? Have you ever been to the doctor or undergone surgery? Have you ever done either of those things when you are unable to afford health insurance? It is not a pleasant expereince, especially when you get a bill for $10,000.
The market has failed to deliver this service to the consumer in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost. Why else does the U.S. spend 15% of its GDP on health care. It is MUCH lower in countries that have, dare I say, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
Ask a Canadian about socialized medicine? I don't want the government any where near health care, I am sorry - it will only get worse. I have said health care is a major concern in this country, I don't have the skills to fix it - that I admit. But what I do know is just because it needs major attention certainly does not make a case for gevernment intervention.
Then what is the other alternative? Let the system continue to falter and its cost to explode so that more and more Americans go without health insurance? YOu have to get the idea that government is less efficient than the market at providing goods and services. The market may be better at providing toothbrushes and soda pop, but it is horrific at providing health care.
There are many variations or avenues that can be used for provsion of universal access to health care. Canada's isn't the only way. It is the new kid on the block and it isn't the most efficient of the systems out there, but opponents of universal health care always choose to discuss Canadas system. Below is a dated excerpt from a white paper on the topic that I wrote in 1999 or 2000. I believe what precludes universal access to health care in the US is essentially the differeing philosophical belief in it's value, it's not economic. We find money for programs we consider valuable.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Health Care Delivery in Britain, Germany, and Canada"
Many western countries guarantee their citizens access to health care. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, the government directly manages the delivery of health care in the country. Physicians and other health care practitioners are employed by the government to deliver health services. This health care delivery system is known as a national health system. (Shi & Singh, 1998) In Germany, universal health insurance coverage is provided to all German citizens. The insurance is financed through government mandated employee and employer contributions. (Germany also guarantees employment for it citizens) The government pays non-profit insurance companies to collect these contributions and to pay physicians and hospitals. This system is known as a socialized health insurance system (Shi & Singh, 1998) Canada provides universal health care by a utilizing a system of national health insurance. Under this system, the government pays for health care through the collection of general taxes. Private health care practitioners deliver the care; they are not directly employed by the Canadian government. (Shi & Singh, 1998)
Universal Health Care – The Proponents View
Universal access to health care has been a continued debate in the United States, it is a part of any discussion on the issue of health care reform. The mantra of universal health care advocates is that access to health care is a citizens right and that government is responsible for facilitating a citizens access to health services. These advocates also argue that a national health care program would reduce illness and promote wellness and that in return this would “contribute to national efficiency” Support for government funded health insurance programs has been around since the early 20th century . Legislation to mandate state funding for health insurance programs was introduced in 15 states as early as1917. More legislation for national health insurance was introduced in the early 1940’s, but was defeated. In 1946, President Harry Truman appealed for an all inclusive single health insurance system. This was the first presidential proposal for a national health insurance program. This proposal never gained large public support. The American Medical Association vigorously opposed this plan and lobbied against it, as did the American Hospital Association. (Shi & Singh, 1998). Some sort of legislation for a national health care program or a national health insurance system has been introduced in congress since that time, but has always been defeated.
Detractors of universal health care insurance say the high cost of financing such an enterprise is a major deterrent. Supporters of these programs say the nations that provide broad health coverage for its citizens, and have economic parity with the United States; spend far less on health care services than we do. Canada is said to have the second most expensive health coverage systems and in 1993, they spent 250 billion less than the US. (Goldberg, Marmor & White) In spite of health care cost containment efforts, the cost of health care and the resultant high cost of health insurance premiums continue to rise. The high cost of health insurance has cost the steady decline in the number of insured Americans for the past decade.
According to the article, “The Relation between Universal Health Insurance and Cost Control, published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 16, 1995; medical costs can be reduced by abolishing health insurance. The article further states that countries that have universal health system’s, have more efficient techniques of cost control and that there is better political support for controlling costs. The administrative costs of universal health care systems have been demonstrated to be substantially lower than that of third party payer systems of insurance that are the norm in the United States.
The administrative costs of universal health care systems have been demonstrated to be substantially lower than that of third party payer systems of insurance that are the norm in the United States...by lynn
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The present system in which doctors have to contend with multiple insurers with varying rules and coverages is extremely inefficient. And I suspect some of the inefficiency is built in by the insurance companies to discourage claims.
It seems to me that health care is one industry in which the usual free market forces do not apply. When you are having a stroke and the paramedics come with the ambulance, it is impossible to comparison shop. When the doctor suggests a procedure, the patient is not knowlegeable enough to say "that's too expensive, can I have the cut-rate procedure?"
I hope we in this country can look at other ways of doing health care to come up with something that works better.
You’re absolutely correct. The health care financing system that exists in the US today is a tortuous convoluted mess. Many studies have shown that if the insurance companies would redirect the emphasis and resources that place on actively discouraging claims and access of service to a focus on what in the industry is called wellness maintenance and promotion they would actually save money, and more importantly the patients have better health outcomes.
The administrative costs of universal health care systems have been demonstrated to be substantially lower than that of third party payer systems of insurance that are the norm in the United States. by Lynn
***
My concerns with socialized medicine are not the cost but rather the level of care. I have experience with the systems in two countries that have these programs. The delays in care as you wait “your turn” are unbelievable. It is frustrating working within the constraints of a government run medical care system. I don’t think universal health care will be a step forward.
I don’t think universal health care will be a step forward.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I guess it depends on your circumstances. I'm sure it would be a step down for those who currently have coverage or who are well-off enough not to have to worry about the expense. Those of us who have no coverage and are not wealthy can only put off going to the doctor until it's absolutely necessary to go, and then hope that it isn't something serious that will ruin both our health and finances. Those of us who pay for our own health care would be grateful for even the discount that health providers and pharmacists give the insurance companies.
I guess it depends on your circumstances. I'm sure it would be a step down for those who currently have coverage or who are well-off enough not to have to worry about the expense. Those of us who have no coverage and are not wealthy can only put off going to the doctor until it's absolutely necessary to go, and then hope that it isn't something serious that will ruin both our health and finances. Those of us who pay for our own health care would be grateful for even the discount that health providers and pharmacists give the insurance companies. by wanderwoman
***
I suppose if you want to go under the any is better then none policy it would be considered a step-up. But I think you would do better with Medicare/Medicaid and free clinics and payment plans and such (each obviously depending on your situation) then the socialized systems I have experience with. Imagine waiting over a year for a quadruple bi-pass (by the powers that be, he survived but it was scary)
I think the increasing high cost of medical care for uninsured is the direct effect of insurance companies sticking it to the medical profession with “reasonable and customary” fee schedules. The participating provider plans that so many have been forced to become a part of in order to “do business” have the fees being raised to ridiculous levels in hopes of raising reasonable and customary rates that the insurance companies pay out. The increase in pricing obviously has no effect on the insured patient but the exorbitant fees do harm the uninsured who are faced with paying outright these elevated fees.
I have been in both positions so I do know the worry and fear (thankfully, I did not have any catastrophic illnesses during the non-insured times.)but I just think we have to come up with a better solution then a government run health care system.
My guess would be if there was such a plan instituted the currently insured would remain with the old system and the government participants would still get shafted in the health care department.
But I think you would do better with Medicare/Medicaid and free clinics and payment plans and such (each obviously depending on your situation) then the socialized systems I have experience with.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That works for those who qualify, but most people don't qualify for Medicaid, and of course medicare is for those who are 65 or older. Many of us make just enough money not to qualify for help, but have no benefits through an employer. I have found that there is a real misunderstanding about the availability of the current government health care programs. They are very specific about who they cover. Many people can get help for their children, which is good, but I meet a lot of adults who qualify for nothing.
That works for those who qualify, but most people don't qualify for Medicaid, and of course medicare is for those who are 65 or older. Many of us make just enough money not to qualify for help, but have no benefits through an employer. I have found that there is a real misunderstanding about the availability of the current government health care programs. They are very specific about who they cover. Many people can get help for their children, which is good, but I meet a lot of adults who qualify for nothing. by wanderwoman
***
I think in the quote you pulled out you will see I mentioned a couple other options and indicated there are more and I also stated it depended on which plans a person qualified for. I wrote “depending on your situation”. There by acknowledging not all applied to everyone.
There by acknowledging not all applied to everyone
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Free clinics also have income guidelines, and payment plans...well, I already utilize those when I need to, but if I were unfortunate enough to require major medical assistance there is no way I would risk saddling my children with crippling medical debt. I think at that point I would have to step out in front of a bus. With sincere apologies to the bus driver.
Free clinics also have income guidelines, and payment plans...well, I already utilize those when I need to, but if I were unfortunate enough to require major medical assistance there is no way I would risk saddling my children with crippling medical debt. I think at that point I would have to step out in front of a bus. With sincere apologies to the bus driver. by wanderwoman
***
My point was never these were the answer. My point was in my experience they were better then what I had experienced with socialize medicine. I don't argue they are not great answers.
Perhaps affordable catastrophic insurance plans could assist in covering those that don’t qualify for assistance in case of major medical situations. I think that could go a long way to alleviating that fear so many of us have when we don’t have insurance. After all, the gamble is they would not have to pay out as often as they would in traditional plans.
I think we do need to make reforms but I think we have to think outside the box to cover different contingencies. One universal sweeping change like socialized medicine will not fix the problem.
One universal sweeping change like socialized medicine will not fix the problem.
by lostlogic - Wednesday September 21, 2005 12:25:04 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That may be the case...I am not sure what the answer is. I know that the current system is not working for a lot of people. I am just concerned that many people don't realize the scope of the problem, how many people go without coverage and how out-of-control health care costs are becoming. Whether or not socialized medicine is the answer, the free-market system is not working for a lot of people either.
That may be the case...I am not sure what the answer is. I know that the current system is not working for a lot of people. I am just concerned that many people don't realize the scope of the problem, how many people go without coverage and how out-of-control health care costs are becoming. Whether or not socialized medicine is the answer, the free-market system is not working for a lot of people either.
by wanderwoman
***
I agree. I think the issue does require government intervention of some sort. It is obvious the industry is not fixing the problem voluntarily.I think the debate over socialized medicine has deflected any serious consideration from our politicians to come up with some real reform to health care. Like so many other issues they just like to hit each other over the head with but don't really understand the urgency of the problem. Our politicians are so busy fighting each other they forget they are supposed to be fighting for us.
Which two? Britain's and Canada's I'm betting. They are two of the most INEFFICIENT universal health care systems. Germany has the oldest system, it's been around since the forties and I have read that it is extremely efficient and the health measures of its citizenry is very positive. Many other countries have instituted systems based on the German paradigm but tweaked for their country's unique needs of course. There are many lessons to learn about what not to do. We could adopt those processes that have worked best.
As I said before the real reason for not seriously investigating this is philosophical. Some of us (me) believe that affordable access to health care is a citizen's right. Some adamantly disagree like Tommy; they believe that health care is a privilege. We have been having this argument in the USA for over 100 years now.
Some of us (me) believe that affordable access to health care is a citizen's right. Some adamantly disagree like Tommy; they believe that health care is a privilege. We have been having this argument in the USA for over 100 years now.
by Lynn - Tuesday September 20, 2005 11:25:08 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think there's another argument for it that is both compassionate and practical. As I stated in another post, people who have no help with health care put off treatment until there is no other option. In many cases that means that the illness is more serious and more expensive to treat, and the person may be left with more impairment because of the delay. That is the point at which we will have no choice but to treat the person despite their inability to pay. I think it makes sense to help people out when the illness is less advanced and less expensive to treat.
A great argument!
Have A Good Night.
Have A Good Night.
by Lynn - Tuesday September 20, 2005 11:39:58 PM EST
You too Lynn!
How tiresome and common this sort of string is!
So much seems to boil down to intelligence, and the capacity for complexity. When cornered, simpletons run to "love it or leave it" & the socialism claim.
You see the long, nuanced posts. Then the short, strident ones relying on talking points.
Democracy is not = capitalism, but calls for a constant, fluid tension between the wonderful ingenuity and drive of free markets and regulations to ensure competition and some measure of consumer protection. Folks who worship capitalism don't really understand that you can't become a Gates without the beauracracy-slash-"rule of law".
And, yes, certainly, there are those who are too hateful or denigrating of capitalism. Ideally, more of the free market would handle more government functions and be awarded contracts based on scientific, empirical evidence of efficiency and effectiveness. For example, the government might have bought 30 Hummers for each of 20 DOD bidders, and told them to armour them and test them against 10 common types of IEDs, then selected the best performing company. Didn't happen. The govt-big bness relationships are too incestuous.
Which two? Britain's and Canada's I'm betting.-lynn
***
Sorry, Lynn you lost the bet.(-:
Ask a Canadian about socialized medicine? I don't want the government any where near health care, I am sorry - it will only get worse. I have said health care is a major concern in this country, I don't have the skills to fix it - that I admit. But what I do know is just because it needs major attention certainly does not make a case for gevernment intervention. by tommy -
***
You are right about the Canadian health care system. However, we do need government intervention to help fix the problem…but not in the form of Socialized medicine. We need them to force some regulations in the Insurance industry. Because of changes made in their policies and a little seemingly innocuous thing called “reasonable and customary” they have systematically ruined healthcare and healthcare coverage.
Or you could ask someone over 65 about their Medicare.
It is MUCH lower in countries that have, dare I say, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. by blueblood
***
Speaking from personal experience with regards to two separate countries that have socialized medicine…this is not the direction we should be going in.
I would like to see some reform of the insurance companies though. They are the ones who are creating such havoc in our health care system. HMO’s have seriously harmed both health care providers and their patients. Unfortunately, the insurance lobby is too powerful and I don’t see much hope of reform.
"Socialized Medicine" is another buzzword created by Conservatives to shelter their wealthy contributors in the healthcare/insurance/pharmaceutical industries. These guys are making such obscene profits; of course they don't want anything to change.
One possible solution is a single payer government insurance program. People who can't get private insurance pay premiums into a government insurance program. For people below a certain income level, it would be free. It essentially becomes one big group policy for the millions now uninsured. The government would pay the claims, but have no say in medical decisions. You would still have your own doctor, and he or she would make the medical decisions. How is that worse than the current system?
It's not. That is what is so incredible about those who oppose single-payer health care insurance. It can be efficient if developed and implemented properly!
"The entire point is a philosophical one."
Tell the guy at the gas pump that you philosophically don't think gas should be $3 a gallon. See how many gallons you get. We live reality, not a coffee house.
Do you realize that tax revenues this year are the highest ever in the history of this country? Do you also realize that along with that, there were tax cuts. Tax cuts create jobs and extra money that businesses can use to stimulate the economy. Tax the rich people, and they can't create those things. Neal Boortz was exactly correct. A progressive tax system punishes work and achievement (Nonetheless is needed to stay politically viable).
However, you should take a look at Boortz' real issue with going on that show in the first place. The FairTax Book is an excellent bipartisan book. The idea needs to be passed soon.
On a seperate note, it was very funny to see the author of this article to state that Boortz is right-ring. What is he smoking. Just because he shows Democrats for who they really are doesn't make him right-wing. There is such a thing as a centrist and/or Liberterian. Guess he's never listened to his show.
For everyone blowing out that the government should run everything, are you nuts? Have you been to the DMV lately to get your driver's license renewed?
The answer to education woes... The government shouldn't spend more money on indocrination centers, they should move it to private entities...with vouchers. Competition is always the answer.
As for the moron that said that gas prices have tripled under Bush...is it his fault? You guys need to realize that Bush has very little power for anything that goes on in this country. The Fed Funds Rate just went up today...nope, not Bush (I'm quite sure you will blame it on him for rising interest rates though). A little thing called 3 Seperate, but Equal Powers...plus some more, like the Federal Reserve Board.
For anyone who thinks about gas price hikes, you should study the manufacturing boom in China and the economic boom in India. It is all about supply and demand...these two countries are sucking up demand. But, hey, go ahead and keep blaming Bush for it. Nobody would expect less.
Republicans aren't into reducing spending anymore.
DeLay declares 'victory' in war on budget fat
The repugs. are totally desperate because bush is losing his base over their many incompetent screwups, fastly growing deficet and his habitual dishonestly.
Lost Logic, how dare you judge my life when you know NOTHING about me. you don't know the events in the course of my life that lead meto my current state. How inconsiderate and presumptuous! You need a big slice of humble pie you arrogant turd.
Lost Logic, how dare you judge my life when you know NOTHING about me. you don't know the events in the course of my life that lead meto my current state. How inconsiderate and presumptuous! You need a big slice of humble pie you arrogant turd. by blueblood
***
I don’t judge your life. I judge your written disdain for this country and Americans as you baldly wrote of in your posts. You claimed you had “no choice” but to live in this country and amongst these “Americans, who just don’t get it” you so abhor. I simply offered my assistance in showing you that you do indeed have choices you just don’t want to make them.
Although I would offer this additional piece of advice; you probably should not call people “turd” it doesn’t reflect well on you.
You need to learn not to judge other people so quickly. When you put words into my mouth and question my patriotism I will respond in kind. Those "opportunities" I was afforded in this country were not fought and died for by conservatives or capitalists, but by unions, the weak, the disenfranschised. All the benefits of this nation we take for granted were advocated and implemented by progressives. We made this country great, the robber barons would be content to revert back to the 1890s if given the choice.
You need to learn not to judge other people so quickly. When you put words into my mouth and question my patriotism I will respond in kind. Those "opportunities" I was afforded in this country were not fought and died for by conservatives or capitalists, but by unions, the weak, the disenfranschised. All the benefits of this nation we take for granted were advocated and implemented by progressives. We made this country great, the robber barons would be content to revert back to the 1890s if given the choice. by blueblood
***
Truce Blueblood. I suspect I AM misjudging you and your words were just carelessly thrown out in your passion for the subject without regard for their impact. The fact that you think I put words in your mouth tells me I am probably correct in thinking you did not realize what you were claiming…I directly quoted you as denoted by the quotation marks I put around your statements.
The right’s favorite deflection is that we on the left and anyone who expresses dissent or dissatisfaction with the status quo and this administration are anti-American. Your words played right into there stereotype.
Your certitude that your way is the only right way is reminiscent of what the far right is doing to our country. Please keep in mind that neither side has the full solution, but instead the answer lies somewhere in compromise. Our entire system in this country was started with compromise and we should continue that tradition and we will continue to improve as a country as a whole.
“The greatest threat to civility—and ultimately to civilization—is an excess of certitude…”-George F. Will ( the quote in its entirety is a wake up call and a warning for us all, if you have the time look it up and read the whole thing)
I was referring to people like Tommy in my post critical of American attitudes towards those less fortunate. Certainly people like Lynn, Laura, and WanderWoman do not qualify. Read between the lines my friend. If Americans as a whole were concerned about the less fortunate, they would have started relief drives for the people of NO BEFORE the hurrican struck the city. Why as a populace are we reactive? Proactive attitudes towards poverty and inequality would be far more efficacious.
Those of you who support Bush's "No Millionaire Left Behind" program need to do a little research into the origin of the whole "Death Tax" propaganda campaign. NPR did a story about this some time back. Apparently a wealthy lawyer hired the Heritage Foundation to come up with a plan for eliminating the Estate Tax. All these talking points we see here now came out of that effort. IT'S ALL B.S.
Every estate is revalued at fair market value (FMV), which means the legacies inherit as if they PAID FMV.
Example: Bill Gates croaks and leaves an estate with a FMV of $60 billion in which he actually paid (hard cash) $5 billion. His kids inherit it as if they PAID $60 billion. Without the estate tax, the taxable gain difference of $55 billion would NEVER GET TAXED.
In this country, we tax WORKING people's income FOUR TIMES. FICA tax (7.65%), federal income tax (15 to 35%), state income tax (3% in IL), sales tax (8.25% in Cook County). Rich people's income (capital gains and dividends) is never FICA taxed, and their federal income tax is calculated at a preferential fixed rate (15%), and now those same rich people want additional tax relief with the abolition of the estate tax, the equalizer.
Well, this "follower of Karl Marx" is wondering if the government is being run by the "followers of Machiavelli".
First, for whoever mentioned privating education -- wrong. It will only guarantee the inequality of education by class in the country. And don't say that private schools do better than public schools educating children for two reasons:
1) There is no standardized test for private schools.
2) Private schools get to pick who they educate. They don't have to try to educate everyone, so they don't. Educating some and opportunity of education for all very different.
3) Corporate competition led to the Enrons and the Tycos of the world, you want your children there.
For the rest of the extreme right wingers out these words I leave you with, their pretty good:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Notice the parts about establishing justice, the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity -- coming after we the people. Not some, but all. This country was suppose to raise a people not a few to new heights. As a whole I have not seen it in my lifetime, there have been moments and by and large we have squandered them for our own (right and left) agendas which have revolved more around professional politics and power rather than people and our nation. Pity we'll probably never look at that. But realize, as I say this that I and most credible economists believe trickle down economics is a failure. Raising the nation not a class is the only way to "promote the general welfare".
Bottom line: when money is redistributed to rich corporations and rich people it's a "tax incentive" or a "tax break". When it redistributed to the poor it's "welfare". Time to give the poor some "incentives" and take away corporate and rich "welfare".
Viva la FAIRTAX!!! FASTER, QUICKER, NOW!
The death tax affects WAY more than the top 2% like some person wrote above...it attacks many small business owner families and farmers...it is a plague on America....END THE DEATH TAX permanently!!!
AND READ "THE FAIRTAX BOOK"...the summers' bestselling novel on tax reform!!!
The American Farm Bureau and President Bush could not find ONE incident in which a family lost its farm due to the estate tax to support its abolition. Hunter, quit smoking the GOP weed.
STATE TAX IMPACTS ON FAMILY FARMS
Myth: Many family farmers and small business owners are forced to pay the estate tax.
Reality: Most family farms and small business owners do not meet estate tax eligibility thresholds.
The USDA’s Economic Research Service reported that the average farm household net worth ranged from $576,400 for small farms to $1.5 million for very large family farms. The estate tax already exempts $1.5 million of all estates, and the exemption level rises to $3.5 million by 2009 (double for couples).
The New York Times has reported that the American Farm Bureaucould not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. A recent Federal Reserve Survey of Small Business Finances indicates that the average net worth of small businesses is $702,566. Only 4 percent of small businesses have a net worthof more than $3.5 million, the amount exempted from taxation by 2009, thereby exempting 96percent of all small businesses.
In fact, family farms and small businesses already receive special deductions, valuationschedules, and long term payment options when taxed. Estate taxes are not the reason many businesses fail when passed on.
[link to 64.233.187.104]