Matthews claimed Dems "don't get" that budget deficits are a "moral issue," declared poll finding that "Democrats are more trusted on moral values" to be "stunning"
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Chris Matthews baselessly claimed that "Democrats don't get and better damn get someday" that budget deficits are a "moral issue," and that it is "fairly predictable" that "Democrats will come in and start raising taxes."
Reacting to findings in a Newsweek poll on the October 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews baselessly claimed that "Democrats don't get and better damn get someday" that budget deficits are a "moral issue," as blogger Digby first noted on the weblog Hullabaloo. In fact, as Media Matters for America noted when Matthews previously said, "I don't think the Democrats are any better" than Republicans when it comes to "fiscal responsibility," Bill Clinton's presidency was marked by a gradual reduction in budget deficits leading to four years of surpluses, while President Bush's tenure has seen record budget deficits. Matthews also claimed on the October 9 edition of Hardball that it was "stunning" that the Newsweek poll, conducted October 5-6, found that "Democrats are more trusted on moral values" than Republicans.
Later in the program, Matthews baselessly claimed it is "fairly predictable" that "Democrats will come in and start raising taxes." As Media Matters noted, on October 6, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman falsely accused Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) of saying that if the Democrats take control of Congress, there will be "across-the-board tax increases." In fact, Rangel has said that, if the Democrats were to control the House and he were to become chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Democrats "would not raise taxes" and "would not roll back" President Bush's tax cuts enacted by Congress that are set to expire in 2010.
From the October 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
FINEMAN: Our numbers are, by our poll measures, historic. Fifty-eight percent saying that they misled us into war. Only 29 percent say we're safer as a result of having gone there. Only 29 percent think we're making progress in Iraq. I mean, these are deadly, literally deadly numbers. And so when the topic --
MATTHEWS: No. You didn't give us the deadliest. Which is, Democrats are more trusted on moral values.
FINEMAN: I thought that was the next question.
MATTHEWS: I mean, that is the stunning -- the Democrats are the big-city party, the tolerance party, in many ways, libertarian on social and moral issues. And now they're perceived to be more priestly, more honorable on moral questions -- I guess that includes social questions and sexual questions -- than the Republicans.
FINEMAN: In fairness to the Democrats or to everybody, it's kind of a race to the bottom on that question.
But it is remarkable. It's a turnaround. I think about two or three months ago it was slightly in the Republicans' favor. Not overwhelmingly. Because I think the accumulated sort of aura of the money scandals on the Hill, no one of which made a big impression, but overall they kind of did. The notion of government spending being out of control, which by the way, a lot of people view as a moral issue. The borders not being protected. There's a lot of people --
MATTHEWS: That's something that Democrats don't get and better damn get someday, which is to Republicans, having budget deficits is --
FINEMAN: It's immoral. It's immoral, because we're wasting the assets of our own future, of our children's future. It's something people care about a lot.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Middle-of-the-road perspective?
EUGENE ROBINSON (Washington Post associate editor): I think if you're middle-of-the-road, there's no real percentage in voting for more of this. I mean, Iraq is still a really bad --
MATTHEWS: Well, you gotta vote for less taxes. You know the Democrats will come in and start raising taxes.
ROBINSON: Well, you don't have any money to pay taxes anyhow.
MATTHEWS: That is fairly predictable.
PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC political analyst and former Republican presidential candidate): But that's one reason to go out and vote -- there's no doubt about it -- for Republicans. Republicans will make the tax cuts permanent, Democrats will let the old taxes increase.
ROBINSON: But what Pat said -- the economy, right, I mean, in a macro sense, it's doing pretty well, even with gas prices going down. I think in a lot of places, the loss of those manufacturing jobs and the fact that there's nothing but service jobs --
MATTHEWS: Is that the Republicans' fault, though? Whose fault is that?
ROBINSON: It's the fault of whoever's in office. It's the fault of the incumbents.
Tax cuts during times of deficits aren't really tax cuts at all - they are just tax deferments to future generations. One generation shirking it's responsibility and passing the buck to future generations who have no chance to fight back.
Tax cuts without spending cuts are indeed only half the necessary steps in order to grow the economy and reduce the size of government. Bush has been an abject failure on that end, the biggest spender since LBJ.
We need a fiscally conservative President and Congress who will keep the tax cuts in place and reduce spending appropriately.
We need a fiscally responsible president. There is no longer any proof that being conservative automatically means fiscally responsible.
Dubya' is the biggest spender SINCE HIS FATHER & RONAL REAGAN!!!
...are geared toward the rich and have created this defecit,which most conservative seem to forget was a surplus just six short years ago. The tax cuts are not "across the board" or geared towards the poor and middle class.
I am curious who on this board has recieved any tax cuts in the last six years.
Just as the Republican tax policy is immoral. Deficits demand budget cuts which in turn depletes the social safety net. Which in turn hinders opportunity for the working poor. Cuts in education. Cuts in medicare and medicaid even cuts in military spending and on and on. These top heavy cuts in taxes for the wealthy is immoral. Why should the wealthiest among us enjoy the benefits of the working class more than the working class themselves?
Perhaps Buchanan prefers hard working folks hand their money directly to the ruling aristocracy instead of investing those dollars in the highway system or public transit or headstart programs or any public works program.
Wake up Conservatives. Privatization is a fraud. Corporations are for the corporations by the corporations. Government is for the people by the people.
Why should the wealthiest among us enjoy the benefits of the working class more than the working class themselves?
should read: Why should the wealthiest among us enjoy the benefits provided by the working class more than the working class themselves?
Income redistribution. Sorry, no dice here in the good ole' USA.
upward distribution as it stands now. No thank you conservo parrot.
I don't know what that means. People earn their money, are properly taxed on it. You think it's perfectly fine for those that work for their money give it to those who don't?
very well to what I am referring. Millionaires getting a proportionally larger break on their taxes than HARD working middle class folks do.
You think that by punishing and taxing the hell out of those "millionaires" that create the jobs that the hard working folks have is somehow good for?..........who exactly? Because if you continue to raise and raise their taxes, they will cut and cut jobs to lower expenses.
Then the hard working people you refer to will be unemployed and you and I will be supporting them.
And if you don't think that will happen, think again.
They are the fee you pay for the privilege of living in the greatest country in history. How much is it worth to someone who has a 10,000 square foot house with a 4-car garage?
As for those benevolent "captains of industry"...what a load of crap. Do you think they would start businesses just to provide jobs for the masses? Please. They do it to make money. They can't make money without those workers, so it's a two-way street.
I'm talking about the wealthy paying a fair tax, like the rest of us. Low taxes for the rich do not create jobs. You think out of the goodness of their hearts those CEO's are going to just give raises and make new jobs instead of giving themselves a raise and cutting jobs for the sake of obscene profit?
Despite your protestations about the unfairness of it all, the rich pay a higher percentage of federal tax than the poor and middle class. It's not even close. The top 1% pay 34.3% of the taxes and earn 16.8% of the income. The top 5% pay 54.4% of the taxes and earn 31.2% of the income.
[link to www.infoplease.com]
Despite your protestations about the unfairness of it all, the rich pay a higher percentage of federal tax than the poor and middle class. - from Bruce1ace
The data you provide to support your statement omit some relevant factors. I saw a much more balanced assessment of tax fairness 20 to 25 years ago. It used something very close to this methodology:
-- Start with everyone's total income. -- Deduct from that amount expenses for basics. This includes shelter, food and clothing. I think that when I read it home heating costs and health care were also included. These are the factors that the graduated tax scales are meant to allow for. -- Calculate all taxes paid (federal, state, sales, etc.) as a percentage of what remained.
When I saw that analysis those many years ago, the calculated tax burden was fairly evenly divided across income groups, with the wealthy doing a little better. Since that time there have been a series of tax cuts that have disproportionately benefitted the wealthy, so I doubt they are suffering under any undue burden at this point.
I have searched in recent years for a similar, more recent analysis of tax fairness but haven't found one. If anyone has a link to anything like it, I'd love to see it.
My point is not to say that the wealthy are suffering by any means, but I do blow a gasket when I read about how the rich aren't paying their fair share like the rest of us when they are paying as a percentage of income a hell of a lot more than "the rest of us". The envy and jealousy and demonization towards the rich drives me crazy. The Twins losing doesn't help my mood any, either.
Society invests heavily in EVERYONES ability to make money under this capitalist system. I am not against that. The rich benifit MORE from this arrangement. I use the highway system to get to work but HL Hunt made a fortune from a trucking company. They SHOULD pay more. Taxpayer money is spent to advertise our products overseas. A large portion of foriegn aid is given to countries to buy US products. The telecommunications system was researched and developed with tax dollars. Drugs are researched and developed with tax dollars not all but many. While it is illegal for the rich and poor alike to sleep on park benches if Donald Trump gets drunk and lost on his yacht the Coast Guard tows it in for free.
When I was in high school the QB of the football team was such a jerk. He was rude arrogant and had this sense of Bush like entitlement. He treated everybody like dirt including his very beautiful and sweet girlfriend. Now one of my friends would call him on being a jerk. Say he was rude and arrogant and his behavior unaccpetable. I had another friend always making excuses for him. He is really nice. His friends make him act that way, he is under a lot of pressure. Now WHICH of these guys was acting jealous? The middle class can keep listening to guys like you and act like that poor person with his nose to the window of a fancy restaurant, convinced if they kiss enough rich butt one day they will get some crumbs, THAT is the envy. OR we can demand the rights a democracy affords us. We can demand they pay their fair share considering their higher return from societies investment in the economy. Spare me the projection about WHO is actually the envious one though, it wont withstand one seconds scrutiny
The class warfare people such as yourself insist that the rich aren't paying their fair share so please define for me what that is. Obviously the top 5% paying over 50% of Federal Taxes isn't good enough for you so give me something to work with.
That is the percentage of DISPOSABLE income. And all taxes not just payroll taxes.
The fact is that capital gains, which is where the majority of the money comes from at the upper end of the economic spectrum is taxed at a much lower rate than wages. There is no excuse for people to pay a lower percentage from the money they make with their money than I do from the money I make with my labor. Remember the Lincoln quote?
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Abraham Lincoln Source: December 3, 1861 - Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress
the number of employees they need. and tommy's thesis of higher taxes on the rich reducing jobs is refuted by the clinton job boom after his tax plan was implemented. as opposed to the bush job bust. his job creation rate has not even kept up with population growth. and the all time high on the stock market does not take into account the inflation since the last previous high in 2000. those who have had their money in the market since then have really lost.
Demand creates jobs. Its hardly a public service for millionares to take advantage of demand to make money by the labor of others. Hey thats the way Bush became a millionare isnt it, hard work, responsibile managment and his nose to the grindstone? Wait, no it isnt he faile in EVERY business he ever ran and cashed in on his political name to make money in the way many, MANY millionares do thats public cost turned into private profit. He got a tax increase in Arlington Texas put on the ballot when it passed the added value to the team of the stadium financed by PUBLIC dollars caused the owners to GIFT him with an extra ten percent of the team. You repeat the mantra but it doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
Those "millionaires" that you so lionize are no longer 'creating' good jobs. They're SHIPPING THEM OVERSEAS! And, they're recieving additional TAX BREAKS for doing that.
You have an amazing gift, Tommy. Those arguments that you don't have an answer for, you simply ignore. You just go on repeating your little conservative addages, as if no contrary argument had been made at all. If someone points out the enormous DISPARITY in the tax cuts being heaped upon America's economic elites, as well as the severe consequences of those tax cuts that are then suffered by the middle & working classes of this nation, you simply pretend as if nobody had spoken at all.
But there ARE consequences, & the rest of us are paying them. We suffer from a lessening of good-paying jobs. We suffer from increased "user fees" that eat away at the already strained budgets of most Americans while being completely inconsequential to elites. We suffer from financially strapped & decaying schools, as well as higher tuition & student loan interest rates. We suffer from a crumbling infrastrutcure. We suffer from rising crime rates. We suffer from HIGHER TAXES down the line.
This neocom mania for using government as a tool for FURTHER ENRICHING those who are ALREADY FILTHY RICH is breaking us. It is plutocracy, plain & simple. It is NOT the PURPOSE for which government was set up in the first place. Government is supposed to provide for the GENERAL WELLFARE, not as a means of extorting money & resources from the majority for the interests of the elites. That is midieval thinking. The neocons have done tremendous levels of harm to our nation BECAUSE THEY DON'T GIVE TWO SH*TS ABOUT US.
Wise up, man. Unless you're a closet billionaire, they're f*cking YOU over as badly as the rest of us. This is the thrust of their grift, Tommy. They use the tools of the mass media... which they undeniably control... in order to con people like you & me into supporting them as they gleefully pick our pockets.
You think that by punishing and taxing the hell out of those "millionaires" that create the jobs that the hard working folks have is somehow good for?..........who exactly?
Our country had a very robust economy in the 1950's. In that time a family could be supported by one income (ah, the good old days). What, do you suppose, was the major difference between that economy and today's? It was the taxes paid out by the wealthy.
Here is a quote from the essay "Flat Tax Fiasco," by economist Douglas Dunn:
"In the 1950's, the tax rate for the highest income layers was much higher than now, and there were many more brackets. There were 13 brackets, and the top marginal rate was 91%, though very few people had incomes reaching into that strata and those who did only paid that percentage on the fractional portion of their income that made it into that level. Most agreed it was too high, and in the early 1960's, President John F. Kennedy proposed that it be lowered it by 25% and the proposal was actually enacted in early 1964, after his death. Yet, the economy was not burdened by excessive taxes. Those were very prosperous decades, in large part because a greater share of the burden came from those who could most afford it, while middle class working families paid lower rates (before inflation-generated "bracket creep"), leaving more disposable income for more people to pump back into the economy.
In other words, taxing millionaires works for everyone, and it would work for you, too. In the meantime, spare us the crocodile tears; name one millionaire who ever lost any measure of his lifestyle through paying his taxes. Yeah, I thought not.
The taxes paid by corporations were much higher back then as well. They have been creeping down just like the taxes on individuals at the top of the income pyramid have. It is deliberate and it's long term consequences are being felt now after decades of this going on.
Or does anyone really think that more and more people living check to check praying they will have health insurance tomorrow is just a coincidence?
We need serious reforms in this country on many, many issues.
Then you should know that in order for there to be a society, there has to be a means of paying for social programs. There is no such thing as a free market. Wealth is usually created by the sweat of the working class. That's the way it's been since the industrial revolution. Workers make goods or provide services and those who employ them reap most of the benefit. You'll say that the owners deserve their profits because it's their capital that is invested. It may be their money that is invested, but it's also the sweat equity of the working class that enables corporations to earn their profits. The sharing of the wealth has never been equitable.
The economic system in place in this country allows too many to fall through the cracks. If we are to be a moral and civilized society, we are REQUIRED to help those who have been discarded by the free enterprise system. We come a long way in cleaning up society's welfare rolls and at the same time allowed corporate welfare to blossom. It's the latter that is responsible for many of our economic problems today, not social programs.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
Selfishness is the only real atheism; aspiration, unselfishness, the only real religion.
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.
We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics.
Just stop it. Taxing the wealthy never cost anyone a job. These are the same old tired lies that have been carried on by the privileged for eons.
Trickle-down economics is a farce. Real economics goes upward: When the middle class does well, they can afford to spend money, and that's when business fills the niche, makes money, and is taxed appropriately.
Not too many people like paying taxes, but no rich person has likely ever said "To hell with all these millions I'm making; if I can't keep all of it, I don't want any of it!"
Regarding cutting costs by cutting jobs, get real. This is the same lie that gets told when the discussion of the minimum wage is brought up. "Oh no, employers will cut jobs."
The truth is that if an employer could afford to get by with fewer employees, they would have already done so. How many successful businesses have lots of unneeded employees on the payroll?
The "trickle down" theory is less valid in an enivironment of overseas outsourcing of jobs.
We all KNOW what 'trickles down' and it isnt economics
You have been sounding somewhat reasonable lately -- sort of like you might actually think things out from time to time -- but then there's this knee-jerk reaction, this battle-cry, of "income redistribution" that sounds like it came straight from Grover Norquist. Oh, you're probably right: if old folks need medical care, it's just too bad if they weren't careful enough to put aside a couple million or so for the cancer therapies they need -- they should just die and not be a burden to others; and even if they survived, but had pay out their life savings, had to sell their house and every valuable thing they owned, it's too bad -- Florida's warm, they can live in cardboard boxes with the roaches and alligators. Or maybe their daughter, the schoolteacher who makes $38k each year could pay for it all -- it's family, after all -- and please, by all means, let's make sure that all the drugs are full-price so that there's no impact on the drug companies' profits! No, Tommy, it isn't "income redistribution" -- it's being an American and helping out other Americans, even some non-Americans, who need help. It's being a "good citizen".
Got news for ya, Thomas: every time the tax code is tweaked, income is redistributed. We don't live in a free market system and it's naive to pretend otherwise. The market is heavily regulated, and various mechanisms in our legal system - which is created by men, not operated by some mystical, perfect invisible hand - work to channel wealth into certain hands. Our intellectual property laws are a good example. Inheritance laws and the estate tax are another.
There probably is no perfectly fair system of taxation. Everybody wants it to work in their favor, which is to be expected.
We are not, sadly for you, a Socialistic society. Wealth and income is not spread around and redistributed to those who do not earn it, despite your objections.
In your world only, privitization is a fraud - thankfully, not in America.
Why shouldn't the wealthy pay more for government services? They benefit more from it. They have more to defend, more to lose. I'm not even talking about welfare. The cost of the Iraq war isn't even included in the budget, why shouldn't the rich bastards who support George Bush pay for his little oil adventure?
Look at the taxes the wealthy pay? How much of their income do you want?
Let's tax capital gains at the same rate as wages. Why should money earned by not working be taxed any less than money earned by working? Also, keep the inheritance tax. That whole issue is bogus...a public relations firm dreamed up all that crap about people losing family farms and small businesses.
Rich people already live like kings in this country...why shouldn't they pay for the privilege?
Hoarding: the process of stocking up all the cash so noone else has any.
If the ultra-wealthy have ALL the cash, nothing will move. Economy will stop. No currency in circulation, no economy. So those who hoard more and more, far more than they will ever need in a lifetime of luxury, and demand even more....it stagnates our economy, depriving the others of buying power, destroying demand for goods and services beyond the bare essentials, if even those can be adequately met.
You don't feed a greedy dragon more gold...he just sits on it and does nothing with it. And shuffling the gold from investment to investment does nothing if there is no more demand due to total lack of buying power from the masses. Remember that every population is finite, there is no bottomless pit of cash the masses can access to make the rich even richer. There are limits and we're going towards them fast.
you prefer no highways no internet no military no public education all of which are publicly funded.
And yeah right as if some CEO is 452 times more productive than your average line worker at Ford or GM.
You just can't accept that Government can be effective when held to account by we the people. Go live in your corporate fascist society instead where our betters call the shots for us.
Schools, police departments, hospitals, emergency services, roads, etc....that's all socialism. Socialism builds infrastructure, puts cops on the beat and books in the classrooms. Those highway bridges? Socialism put them there for you. That space program? Socialism put a man on the moon. It will be socialism that puts a man on Mars.
If you want an example of a completely privatized society, you need look no further than just south of the US to the little land of Haiti. It's a libertarian free-for-all where emergency rooms won't even apply a bandage without cash on the barrel. It's a total dump. Long live socialism.
That's simply NOT true. We do not have a purely capitalist society, and if we did, it would simply not work. We do not have a purely Socialistic society, that would not work. I hate to tell you this, Tommy, but taxation IS wealth redistribution. It moves wealth from state to state to build highways, provide security, and provide for projects for the common good ( a concept the Republicans seem to have no use for, by the way ). Tax revenue provides for programs like WIC, a program which has been proven to provide more return in tax revenue than expense in the long run - children who do not develop properly become a burden to society, rather than a benefit, and nutrition during development is critical for intelligence and future health - one of my best friend's wives is a PhD who studied the benefits of WIC on a government grant. Taxes provide for public education, mass transportation, law enforcement. And the people who work in these areas are - guess what?? - PAID FOR WHAT THEY DO. Is this not wealth redistribution? Oh, and would you prefer we do NOT have these programs? Perhaps you would prefer a nice third world country, because these social programs which benefit the greater good instead of the wealthiest among us are what differentiates us from the third world.
More millionaires were created out of the Clinton years with reasonable 38-43% income tax rates on the top income brackets, and a marginal capital gains tax.
In return we benefited both the rich, richest, and moderately wealthy with a competent government with prestige in the world, a surplus budget, and record job creation that include increased wages, along with more people being lifted out of poverty.
In short; good, competent governance that has diligent oversight, and free elections creates the kind of government that represents a moral consensus that secures, preserves, and defends the democracy while doing the kind of things a socially responsible nation should do; protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us.
This is what a democracy can do when those whom lead believe in government, rather than vilify, and exploit it for their own self interest.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
For instance when the Nation institute of health funded the search for an anti cancer drug, they found Taxol. Taxpayer money paid for every bit of the development of Taxol. When it was time to market the drug it was GIVEN to Bristol Squibb Meyer. They charge whatever they want. Public Cost Private profit. Taxpayer money pays to give low interest loans to foriegn governments to buy American products. Public cost private profit. Taxpayer money goes to ADVERTISE products to foriegn markest Public cost Private profit. Where would Boeing, Martin Murrietta, or the Railroads be without the public investment? They wouldnt exist. How many millionares did those companies make? It makes a nice story but the reality is much different. I mean it happens sometimes but our society puts a whole lot of investment into the money EVERYBODY makes and that includes millionares. Typically selfish conservatives who worship at the alter of Ebeneezer Scrooge want to pretend they did it all on their own, pretend that societies investments didnt exist and that if they have to pay INTO society it is stealing from them.
This just illustrates how successful the Republican propaganda has been. Morality is more than how much you love Jesus, or whether or not you go to church on Sunday, or whether you believe any of the fairytales in the Bible, or whether you support or oppose abortion. Morality also includes how you treat your fellow man, doing what you say you'll do, not LYING, even about war...hell...especially about war. Jesus the man knew this and taught it (at least according to the Bible)...too bad so many of his modern followers cannot grasp the concept.
How anyone can claim to care about "morality" and still support George Bush is a mystery to me.
When Ronnie Chimp-Boy took office in his first SOUA he told the nation of deficits that if stacked in one dollar bills would be 64 miles into the atmosphere.
When he left office he left the next guy swinging in the breeze, Mr. "Read My Lips" George Bush had a deficit that would then stack 240 miles in the atmosphere leaving him to roll back tax cuts, and increasing taxes. It was Republicans lying their ass off about Democratic excesses that were actually their own.
When Clinton and a united Congress & Senate balanced the budget, stimulated the economy to the extent that a surplus of $220 billion dollar accumulated the Republicans could not contain themselves justifying the roll back of taxes, and the dismantling of the government for privatization to their allies/cronies.
Here we are with $450 billion dollar deficits, a foreign deficit of $850 billion and Matthews would espouse Democratic excesses when the Republicans have been driving our nation into oblivion with no oversight of their own, and have left the Democratic Minority out of the room on everything.
Making the Democrats the Republican scapegoat is a recipe for failure, thank God.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
times on this website, that, over the years, regardless of tax rates, while revenue to the government has doubled about (on average) every 8-10 years, expenditures have doubled (on average) every 6-8 years. It appears to me that government deficits are caused as much by the lack of spending restraint as they are by tax cuts. As it is right now, where top 50% of the taxpayers pay well over 90% of the taxes, we are reaching a point where the majority of taxpayers (assuming government employees are in the top 50%) are dependent on the top 50% for their share of government services, so the politicians are going to continue to buy "majority" votes by promising the most to the majority of the taxpayers. In other words, there are more "feeding at the trough" than are supplying the food. When all of us realize we have a stake in the outcome, perhaps we will hold our elected officials more accountable. Until then, ??????????
Eek! A socialist! Eek! Tommy think of the NFL. Teams share profits. This enables small market teams to compete, providing a bigger fan base creating more oppurtunity for the major market teams who have more profit to share to make even more money. Just as taxing the wealthiest among us a little more than the middle and lower income groups keeps poverty down and provides more opportunity. More opportunity means more success. Less poverty means less crime. This is how the economy trickles up. Pure capitalism ala Herbert Hoover gave us the great depression with promises of prosperity around the corner. It took a radical approach to save capitalism. That guy FDR did something about that and he's been labeled a socialist and commie for it. Cons never ever learn.
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 11 Oct 2006 at 03:05:03 AM GMT is: $8,554,509,434,088.38 The estimated population of the United States is 299,671,558 so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,546.28. Whip out your credit card and pay up!
Debt to population
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 11 Oct 2006 at 03:05:03 AM GMT is: $8,554,509,434,088.38 The estimated population of the United States is 299,671,558 so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,546.28. Whip out your credit card and pay up! // - RUCerious / Tuesday October 10, 2006 11:06:26 PM EST
We had competent governance inspite of Republican intrusion, and confusion they called oversight gave us a responsible government, strong military, and buget surplus.
A Democrat in the White House whom believed in democracy, and responsive government.
A Republican who believes government is to be privatised and used to perpetuate their own power and wealth resulted in record deficits, deminished security, a weakened military, and loss of honor & prestige.
If you believe in democracy, and governments limited role in democracy along with a free enterprise, then responsive and effective government is the result.
Republicans do not believe in democracy, nor believe in a reponsible governement as evidenced in the past 6 years of Republican leadership.
For the life of me, I can't figure out how conservatives can be OK with a tax break for those making over $96,000 per year. The Social Security contribution stops right there. A person making 1,000,000 a year pays the same as a person making $96,000. How is that equitable?
sure to jump in to this thread when they see the words "moral" and then read the word "socialism" in various post.
Don't. Think about it a few words "rich an", "heaven", "camel" , and "eye of needle". Christ was a socialist.
And if nothing else the inequity in wealth is killing the democracy we now enjoy. "One person, one vote." Means little when one eats caviar and one is lucky to eat.
We shouldn't have to pay the gov't for such things as police and fire services, trash pickup, and schoolbooks . . . so what's your answer, privatize all those things? If you do, don't you think you'll have to pay whatever company is providing those things?
Poor Tweety . . . finding a poll that reveals that Dems are more trusted on moral values "stunning" . . . Tweety, you really ought to watch the news sometime . . . because when I hear about people like Cunningham, DeLay, Ney, Abramoff, and now Foley, I don't find that "stunning" at all . . .
GOP God Reagan said "deficits" don't matter... interesting... also interesting is that the budget was balanced under Clinton, but under Bush it has ballooned... someone will find a way to blame the current crisis on Clinton anyway, as he is apparently responsible for everything wrong with the country... but, I find it interesting to hear a consternative talk about deficits as a moral issue - if that's the case, Bush is the most immoral president ever...
Tax cuts during times of deficits aren't really tax cuts at all - they are just tax deferments to future generations.
That is very well put!!! Mind if I post it on other boards?
You just have to love the over-simplistic, rhetorical brand of lies that get thrown around. Today I saw fake President Bush blathering on, yet again, about how Democrats will raise taxes. And the prevaricators mentioned in this article are honking the same crap.
As if taxes were the only part of the equation of how well the average American is doing financially. Oh no, will they tax me $20 more per year? Hey, guess what? I'll take it, if it means I don't have to take a job that pays 1/2 as much as the one I lost four years ago. I'll take it if I have a chance of belonging to a union, rather than having the NLRB decide I don't need a fair wage. I'll take it if it means that when a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina hits, we actually have a federal agency that does something about it, rather than having a fake president who simply says "Donate to the Red Cross."
I'll take it if it means I won't have to apologize to my children for their being strapped with massive deficits, which--by the way--have been incurred by none other than the illustrious King George.
I'll take it if these bastards recognize the fact that having almost 50,000,000 Americans without health care is also "a moral issue".
Oh no, they'll raise taxes. I'm so scared, because trade deficits and budget deficits don't exist. I'm terrified, because taxes are all that matter. Unemployment isn't a factor--only taxes. Not being able to afford health care doesn't matter--only taxes.
What's that you say? The income tax is a progressive tax? If I don't make much, I won't be affected? And even if I do pay more, I'm paying for something that counts, like my nation's infrastructure, or schools, or programs that help the needy, rather than the Department of Offense?
Doesn't matter. Raising taxes is bad, no matter who is affected--even if it's the ones who benefit most from the structure of society and the government framework that springs from it.
To hell with Thomas Paine. Who the hell did he think he was, anyway?
Dems particularly this one has been saying that all along. Moral values aren't limited sexual issues although you wouldn't know that by how Matthews and his colleagues identify "values or moral voters" as those focused on sexual matters.
Please ignore my post. I was rushing through and skimming and I missed the whole gist of the thread. So I'm off topic big time. I miss MMFA, but I've started a new job and I can't get here as often as before, but sometimes I rush through here and try to do a quick read.
I pretty much did the same thing in my post above . . . from the way the rightwing GOP acts like they've got some sort of monopoly on morality, its easy to get the wrong impression when you hear "moral issue" . . .
And BTW, congrats on the new job.
This happened in the 80's during the "voodoo economics" of the Reagan years and so it is again. I get tired, really, really tired of people saying if you cut the taxes to the rich it will "trickle down" as they buy new yachts and houses and decide they are going to take their extra money and create businesses and good paying jobs out of it.
Twice in the last 20 years it has been proven that this DOES NOT happen and yet people keep saying it does despite all evidence to the contrary.
There is a war being waged on the lower classes by the upper class and even Warren Buffett has acknowledged this fact.
Is he lying?
If so, for what reason?
You bet they should come in and roll back all the Bush tax cuts that created this defecit in the first place.