Uncritically airing Giuliani's attack, media ignored context of Clinton's remarks on taxes
SUMMARY: In reporting on Rudy Giuliani's Republican
debate performance, several media outlets uncritically repeated his attack on
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, that "with regard to taxes," she
"said ... that we have to take money from you in order to give it to
the common good." But these outlets did not provide any context for Clinton's
remarks, which she reportedly made at a fundraiser in front of an audience that
consisted of people she described as "well enough off that ... the
[Bush administration] tax cuts may have helped" them.
Following the May 15 Fox News-sponsored Republican presidential debate, several news outlets reported former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's attack on Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), in which he asserted that Clinton, "with regard to taxes," "said ... that we have to take money from you in order to give it to the common good." But these outlets did not report that, when she made the comments, Clinton was talking about President Bush's tax cuts, which disproportionately benefited the wealthy, and her support for repealing some of them. She made her comments before an audience at a fundraiser that consisted of people she described as "well enough off that ... the [Bush administration] tax cuts may have helped" them.
On June 29, 2004, the Associated Press reported Clinton's comments as follows:
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer [CA], who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
But reports of Giuliani's attack left out the context of Clinton's comments. During a report on the May 16 edition of the CBS Evening News, CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield aired a clip of Giuliani's attack without offering any context. Similarly, on the same day's edition of CBS' The Early Show, while discussing Giuliani's debate performance with Greenfield, anchor Harry Smith aired Giuliani's attack on Clinton, but neither provided context of Clinton's comments. Additionally, a May 16 New York Post article by reporter Carl Campanile and a USA Today op-ed by Gannett News Service political writer Chuck Raasch ignored the context of Clinton's 2004 statement.
Prior to his attack on Clinton regarding taxes, Giuliani asserted that Clinton "agreed with" the statement, "[T]he unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America." Although The Early Show report, the New York Post article, and Raasch's op-ed uncritically repeated Giuliani's claim, the claim misrepresented what Clinton said, as Media Matters for America noted. A May 16 Bloomberg report noted: "In a 1996 C-Span interview, Clinton said she agreed with a quote she cited [sic] her book, 'It Takes a Village,' that 'The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation.' Clinton also said in the interview 'that the market is the driving force behind our prosperity,' 'but that it cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives as well.' "
From the May 16 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
GREENFIELD: But it was left to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani to turn a question about social issues into the invocation of the Republicans' number one target.
GIULIANI: She's also said, with regard to taxes, that we have to take money from you in order to give it to the common good. Republicans should be uniting to make certain that what the liberal media is talking about -- our inevitable defeat -- doesn't happen.
[end video clip]
GREENFIELD: Giuliani's not so subtle message? "Whatever our disagreements," he's saying, "you need me to beat your real enemy." That message was aimed squarely at the constituency that Reverend [Jerry] Falwell helped bring to a dominant position in the Republican Party. Jeff Greenfield, CBS News, New York.
From the May 16 edition of CBS' The Early Show:
SMITH: First, I want to talk about Rudy Giuliani. As Jim [Axelrod, co-anchor] was talking about, at the last debate, he was trying to straddle the fence on abortion -- that came up clearly in the debate last night. Let's listen to his response.
GIULIANI [video clip]: We're looking at a race here in which the leading Democratic candidate for president of the United States has said that "the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America." That's a quote -- or that's a quote she agreed with. She's also said, with regard to taxes, that we have to take money from you in order to give it to the common good.
SMITH: So one of the things that Rudy's tried to do last night was to differentiate him especially from the Democrats. Jeff, why was that important?
GREENFIELD: No, this was a very significant moment because it is the key to Rudy Giuliani's statement about, believe it or not, abortion, to the social conservatives. He's saying, "Look, you may not agree with me -- we have differences -- but you really don't like Hillary Clinton." For a lot of Republicans, she is Lady Macbeth. "And I'm the one who can challenge her in relatively moderate liberal states like New York and California, so you need to get over this distinction." That's why he brought Hillary Clinton in on taxes on an answer that was supposed to be about abortion.
From the May 16 New York Post article:
Earlier, he [Giuliani] deflected a question about ... his liberal positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights -- and why he backed liberal Democrat Mario Cuomo for governor in 1994 -- by attacking Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton as a backer of big government.
"We're looking at a race in which the leading Democratic candidate for president of the United States has said that the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America," Giuliani said.
"She also said, with regard to taxes, that we have to take money from you in order to give it to the common good," he said.
When pressed, Giuliani defended his pro-choice position on abortion.
From Raasch's May 16 op-ed in USA Today:
Giuliani threw out the political equivalent of a bullfighter's red cape to a Republican audience: the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
"There's something really big at stake here," Giuliani said. "We're looking at a race here in which the leading candidate for president of the United States (Clinton) has said that the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America. ... She's also said, with regard to taxes, that we have to take money from you in order to give it to the common good."
Republicans, Giuliani pleaded, "should be uniting to make certain that what the liberal media is talking about, our inevitable defeat, doesn't happen."
What context? Because she was speaking to a group of wealthy donors, that is supposed to make a difference? Like she was being brave in telling these people that she wants more of their money.....and for who's common good?
If Hillary becomes President, hold on to your wallet........she's comin' after it.
What do you mean more? It would take several hikes to get up to the rates they were paying decades ago.
When the government becomes as efficient and cost effective as any business on the street, stops wasting other people's money and start treating it like their own, lives within it's means, cuts out needless wasteful programs, becomes lean, smart and limited.......if and when that happens and a politician then says they need more of our money, maybe I will listen.
Until then, the gravy train for their spendthrift habits has run dry.
As long as you apply the same standard to Bush's money pit in Iraq, then I tend to agree. However, when conservatives say we can't afford national health insurance or food stamps, it's hard to take them seriously when they support the obscene waste of BILLIONS in Iraq.
I don't support the obscene waste of billions anywhere. The military and the Pentagon are part of the government, as I stated above.
The gravy train has run dry? Oh Timmy, you bring so much to the debate. Where is the outrage on the right for Bush, old Bush and Reagan spending the country into the poor house, seemingly on purpose. Do you enjoy paying taxes that go to interest on debt more than on social programs? Weirdly, this seems to be the case with the righties, even the ones who mysteriously label themselves as 'Christians.' You know, the pro-war, pro-death penalty anti-helping the poor 'Christians' who populate the base of the Republican party. There, I've followed your mixed metaphor with a rambling rant of my own.
I have stated my outrage here over Bush's spending spree numerous times. I am sorry you missed it.
You've stated many things many times here. I know you like to set the debate by being the first poster and all that. I just couldn't resist the 'dry gravy train' thing. And just so you know, 'spendthrift' means someone who is careful about their spending. You know, 'thrifty.' That was just a really funny sentence. I don't mean to get overly personal, but you do have an influence on the 'debate' in here by showing up early, often and making flawed statements that people just can't help responding to. I guess that's just the way the cookie bounces.
Tax cuts have happened consistently since JFK's time. Services have been cut since Ronnie. The deficits are being caused by the GOPs insistence on unlimited defense spending and corporate welfare with no revenue source.
Yes, it does make a difference who is she is talking to/about. It is dishonest to portray her as wanting to raise taxes for all Americans when her real position is to raise them for only the more wealthy Americans who can more easily afford it.
And yes, the "common good". Conservatives like to think sacrificing for your country means putting a made-in-China American flag bumper sticker on your car, but to me it means helping less fortunate Americans in order to strengthen our entire country.
I would gladly pay back all the money I received in Bush's tax cuts in order to save even one Katrina victim. I'd gladly pay back my tax cuts to strengthen our borders, or our ports, or nuke/chemical sites. I'd gladly pay for more Americans to have health care because I think it is obscene for so many millions of Americans to suffer in such a wealthy and developed country as ours. I'd even gladly give back my tax cut money to simply balance the federal budget.
To me, the answer is not to privatize an inefficient government; it is to make our government more efficient (see difference between FEMA under Clinton, and FEMA under G.W. Bush). Government can work if you have the right people in charge.
Liberals like to think that if we just raise taxes enough, that all of our problems will be history.......that everyone will have perfect health care, that every parent will have government run, efficient child/day care, that every child will receive the ideal education and want for nothing, and on and on and on.
The problem is not taxes are too low, it is that spending is too high.....when a liberal finally addresses that side of the balance sheet, maybe he or her will get my vote.
I like how you ALWAYS tend to defend the Conservative position of government spending by attacking and denouncing some of the ideals enspoused by some Liberals and Democrats.
It's a two-way street. Standing against one side, puts the other side at your back.
Admittingly, there are good ideas on both sides, but until we take special interest money away from politicians, no program will be 100 percent worth while.
I was responding in kind to the Brian's assertion about conservatives and their bumper sticker sacrificing - you took no issue with that blanket, baseless generalization, but rather with mine?
The issue is that conservatives tend to believe that small and efficient government and low taxes on everyone is preferable, while liberals look to government for solutions and "leveling the playing field" - those are the general philosophies of both ideologies.......but you're right, compromise is often the key to success, but standing on principles against government waste should be every ideologies priority.
Where would you rank fiscal responsibility among your proirities Tommy? If its anywhere near the top, you have been voting for the wrong side....
I didn't vote for George Bush in 2000 or 2004. So I am not sure what you are referring too.
Fair enough, just checking, what about Pappa Bush or Ronnie?
I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 - any votes I cast before that are at least 20 years old by now, and basically irrelevant considering my philosophies and ideology has dramatically changed since then.
Happy to hear of your consistency, Tommy. I am glad this is not a Republican/Democratic issue for you. If you took offense to my post, please accept my apologies.
Sure you didn't Tommy. You're a blind partisan who spends ALL DAY attacking liberals on a liberal website, but you never voted for Bush? Let me guess, you were a Nader guy? or voted Gore and Kerry while you were attacking them on this website constantly. Stop LYING.
I agree with your statement largely, but I would prefer you not generalize about "liberals". Once again, it would be more precise to use the word "some" unless your intent was to gratuitously insult liberals in general with what looks like a broad-brush statement.
How about Brian's gratuituous insult of conservatives in his post? Or didn't that bother you?
I was simply responding to him.
You had about 5 posts above making blanket generalizations about liberals. Now you have a problem with my generalization? Now I'm making a (sic) "gratuituous insult"?
You distorted this entire post with another dishonest attack Tommy. I have concluded you're just a dishonest person, besides being a blind partisan. You obviously knew they were distorting Hillary's position on taxes, but you feign ignorance and pretend like there was nothing wrong with the dishonest attack. You're a liar and a troll.
fact is (yes we know you are allergic to them) that GOVERNMENT RUN SSI is the most cost effective insurance program, ever. Private insureres have operating costsd in the 20-25% range of every dollar paid in premiums. SSI is at 3%. I know the intellectually empty hate radio sound bites are easier for you, but reality is biased against it.
Brian,
You can certaintly do that. Send the government a check and note your intent. I promise they won't send it back. You can also choose to use your refund check for such pruposes. A very noble thought. I suggest you do that.
I've increased my charitable donations instead. At least most of them have oversight within their organizations. They don't just "lose" billions of dollars.
Brian,
Fair enough. But, you said you would gladly give back your tax cut. Why don't you? I do applaud your charitable actions.
Well, my expanded point was that I'd gladly give back my entire tax cut from all these years in exchange for a more competent administration that would actually use the money to help my fellow Americans.
That's a sacrifice I'd gladly make, and I'm sure most people in my income bracket would as well. That doesn't mean I'd just send them a check to use as they wished, because I've seen their priorities, and know the money would not go towards helping people. That's why I give more to charities than I've ever given before.
To me, "promoting the general welfare" of the people should be a government responsibility, as outlined in the Constitution. The government doesn't exist just to wage war while gutting social programs and FEMA.
By the way, I'm not "wealthy" by any means, but I could have afforded to attend this Hillary fundraiser. My income level would put me JUST above the level where I'd have to pay more taxes if Bush's tax cuts were repealed.
Brian,
That is the interesting thing here. You don't consider yourself wealthy but many including the government do. Are you overtaxed?
Tommy:
She was speaking to people who ponied up $10,000 for a dinner.
By definition, that means they are rich.
She was addressing them, not the Joads, so it is warped to think that her statement was a blanket policy for the nation.
Also, in case you weren't aware, Bush's tax cuts benefited the rich more than anyone else. My mother saves about $200/year in taxes. Big deal.
The people at that dinner probably save $10,000/year, which went to Hillary's cause.
I bet even YOU hate those tax cuts now.
Randy
"What context? Because she was speaking to a group of wealthy donors, that is supposed to make a difference? Like she was being brave in telling these people that she wants more of their money.....and for who's common good? " Tommy
Where is the personal responsibility, the responsibility that says citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth?
The wealthy have made greater use of the common good, they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth, and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it.
The common wealth protects and empowers your ability to prosper, that ability to prosper is the common good.
Truth is that, through the common wealth, America put more money in your pocket than it took out, by far.
Heaven forbid! Republicans won't stand for anything that benefits the common good.
If Giuliani and his fellow Troglodytes were really serious about the "Global War on Terror", they'd be talking tax increases on these billionaires. The fact that they aren't reveals that their "global conflict" language is bullsh*t.
All of their rhetoric about the tax cuts that George W. Bush bestowed on the wealthiest Americans, it smacks of greed so sickening... it's nothing but "me, me, me" with these sick greedy bastids.
So Mrs. Clinton has signaled that those tax cuts may go, if she is elected... and rudy sounds the greed alarm, trying to lead his sick bunch in a chorus of "me, me, me".
So rudy wants to cry bloody murder unfair... "We deserve those tax cuts, and we're not giving them back without a fight! Elect me, greedheads, I'm the one who can defeat Mrs. Clinton... I'm the one who'll preserve those tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans!"
Last January 17, PBS's NewsHour aired an interview by Jim Lehrer with George W. Bush... MMFA had an item about it:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701180017
Mr. Lehrer did the right thing, and as respectfully as he could, he broached the subject with the president, on this extraordinary display of sickness and greed that rudy now sings about... this tax cut business, and how the wealthiest of Americans just don't have to pay.
From that interview, as transcribed by MMFA in their item [abridged by me]:
LEHRER: "Let me ask you a bottom-line question, Mr. President. If it [the 'war on terror'] is as important as you've just said, ...particularly the struggle in Iraq, if it's that important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something? The people who are now sacrificing are, you know, the volunteer military -- the Army and the U.S. Marines and their families. They're the only people who are actually sacrificing anything at this point."
BUSH: "Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night. I mean, we've got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war.
Now, here in Washington, when I say, "What do you mean by that?" they say, "Well, why don't you raise their taxes? That'll cause there to be a sacrifice." I strongly oppose that. If that's the kind of sacrifice people are talking about, I'm not for it because raising taxes will hurt this growing economy. And one thing we want during this war on terror is for people to feel like their life's moving on, that they're able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table. And, you know, I am interested and open-minded to the suggestion, but this is going to be --"
The greed of these people, they're sick with greed...
And rudy's their man.
I would define greed as money-drunk politicians who have become so addicted to spending our money foolishly as to further their own political agendas and entrench their power hungry appetite through a fat and bloated bureacracy.
I define greed as siphoning $450 billion dollars (so far) out of the U.S. Treasury in the name of Iraq, and then giving tax breaks at the same time to people who are in George W. Bush's and Dick Cheney's and rudy's tax bracket...
...leaving the bill for George W. Bush's scheme of lies and greed and death in Iraq, to be paid by middle-income Americans.
And then to have those same Americans who got that tax break, cheer on the deaths of the only People who are sacrificing anything in this 'war on terror': The U.S. Army and the U.S.M.C., and their families...
That's worse than greedy... I'm not sure how to define that sickness...
I don't even think it's human, what these death-lovers and Bush boot-lickers do.
Here's a plan: All of the millionaire's who support the Iraq war should pony up to pay for it. Cheney could probably write a check and pay for new body armour for every soldier over there...and never miss it.
The S.O.B. has certainly socked away enough to provide not mere body armor, but the good stuff - Dragon Skin - which has been the good stuff, at lower cost, for over 10 years. The crapola our kids are wearing doesn't cover significant areas, is less effective against high-velocity military ordinance, one-at-a-time or multiple-strike, and is less flexible. But right after we bought Dragon Skin for our son, the Army dropped the anvil on us: not permitted to use any except G.I. armor. Every outfit which is free to choose (Blackwater, CIA, etc.) chooses and uses Dragon Skin. Yet Bungle (Cheney whispering in his ear, of course) resists giving the grunts a raise. And of course, he cannot afford adequate medical care for them.
The Bush Follies (or is that redundant?)
GWB: I mean, we've got a fantastic economy here in the United States...
Did he actually say this with a straight face? Or did he simply mean "we, the wealthy have" when he said "we've"?
GWB: ...because raising taxes will hurt this growing economy.
Growing? Oh, you mean like the national debt, the gas prices, the job insecurities? They're certainly growing.
GWB: And one thing we want during this war on terror is for people to feel like their life's moving on...
Well, at least 3000 people's lives have "moved on" to an afterlife, thanks to him, and that's just the Americans.
GWB: ...that they're able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table.
Wow! New excuses yet for the war! It's not Saddam, it's not WMD's, it's not spreading democracy, it's to improve the economy back home! Now will someone patiently explain to the president that he's now created a new reason to view the war as a failure?
Republicans keep insisting that Bush is not a stupid as we think...I'm still waiting for evidence of that. The more I hear him speak, the more I'm convinced that the man is a low-functioning imbecile.
Did he actually say this with a straight face?
The MMFA item I linked to above, has in addition to the transcript of what the president said, a video of it also... so you can see his face if you really want to, when he said the things he said.
The video is rather long, several minutes, and the Lehrer interview is the last part of it, but if you have broadband or any of the other superfast connections, then it's not too difficult.
As for his face, and my description of it (seeing as I watched the video of it just now), he was extraordinarily off-hand and callous, even cavalier, as he answered Mr. Lehrer's question about sacrifice... I'd even describe him as arrogant, as he stated that...
BUSH: "Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.
...Now, here in Washington, they say, "Well, why don't you raise their taxes? That'll cause there to be a sacrifice."
I strongly oppose that. If that's the kind of sacrifice people are talking about, I'm not for it..."
Click the link, play the video, you describe the man... to me, he seemed arrogant and aloof to it all.
And don't forget, while we're talking about these greedheads and their tax cuts... remember that that's what this above item is about... it's about rudy picking up that standard and marching with it, all because Mrs. Clinton has signaled that she'd forego those tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, if she were elected.
Most of us have seen dogs who like to play fetch. Usually, you can pretend to throw something and the dog will take off after the imaginary object. Giuliani is using the same technique on the Knuckledraggers of the Republican base. Whenever they start to devour him for his views on social issues, he shouts "Hillary Clinton" and pretends to throw out something substantial. True to their pavlovian conditioning, the troglodytes run howling and drooling after the imagined red meat.
- we have to take money from you in order to give it to the common good - Hillary Clinton
No...what you have to do is restrain spending. The federal treasury is bursting at the seams with revenue. Some fiscal responsibility will do more for the common good than any socialist redistribution.
That goes for all current/future members of congress and presidential administrations.
Where do you propose to find $357billion (the projected 2007 deficit) out of a $644billion discretionary budget? What are you willing to give up to cut 55% of the budget?
Spending. What a generic term. What specific spending items should be eliminated?
That's a big question, it reveals one's moral perspective.
The issue at hand is that the republican party has been very good about tricking poor and middle class people into voting republican because of the fear of raised taxes. They make a lot of americans feel like they will pay a fortune in taxes if democrats are elected, even though the ones who are most affected are teh rich politicians and their friends. The programs the democrats are proposing for the common good would positively impact a larger majority of the middle and lower class than any taxless policies by the republicans.
I dont know how the republicans have been so successful at getting Americans to oppose the programs that benefit them while accepting policies that hurt them in the long run. A government cant run on monopoly money, taxes are important. As long as we have starving people, as long as we have homeless, as long as we have people without dental or health insurance, as long as we are the richest country but behind the rest of the developed world in social programs, we are not strong, and we do not care about the majority of our society.
The republicans are average joes and democrats are elites is teh biggest hoax in the world. How those who look out only for the interest of the super rich have been able to bamboozle so many poor people into supporting them is beyond my scope of reason.
Why are we okay with spending money to fight wars, and build nukes, but not to feed children and build schools?What is with republicans when one can state the democrats want to do something for the common good and make it sound contemptious. How have we as a society moved to a place where peace-lover is an insult, and anti-war is a bad position. I will gladly pay higher taxes if that means every school will be properly funded, every child can read, every person in our country has a home, has food, has a job, and healthcare. I would gladly raise taxes for a less stressful work environment. More time with family per week. I would gladly raise taxes to fund national transit and government run airliners so we can make transcontinental flights for 100 dollars. I would gladly raise taxes to make our country better because the return is tenfold.
We need to let Americans know this. So many are kept in teh dark. They are scared of the boogie man minority who benefit from health care programs, while they are footing the bill, not realizing that the people who convinced them of these lies are actually afraid of them benefiting from health care programs and having to foot 80% of the bill. Most Americans wont be taxed heavily. IT will be the rich. And quite honestly, when you can afford a 17 million dollar umbrella holder, I dont sympathize with how much you are taxed. Especially when we still have people in our country who die of starvation.
When we start raising taxes to buy every high school kid who is impoverished a BMW then I will complain.
Your fondness for taxes is touching, feel free to contribute as much to the IRS as you want too. However, our government is not in the business of nationalizing airlines or guaranteeing jobs.
But yours was a good read, nonetheless.
And, a large percentage of those people are Christian conservatives. Is it any surprise that the "leaders" who urge these pious sheeple to vote Republican happen to be multi-millionaires themselves? Are Dobson, Robertson and (the late) Falwell more concerned about "family values" or their own lavish lifestyles?
Spending on education has doubled since the 70's...federal spending on education has also increased by 40% over the last 6 years.
It is not a funding problem...it's a rotten system, overburdened with non-performing administrators bogged down with federal rules.
We should stop wasting billions of dollars on a failing system...and concentrate on educating students with an outcome based system.
in education, outcome based systems make the teacher 'teach to the test' and no real discourse or critical thnking- hence, education- is given to the students...
No Child Left Behind is a joke. It just so happens that one of W's brothers is in the standardized test business. Surprise, surprise!
not to mention the program NCLB is based on was shown to be based on fraud and lies. Again no surprise dumbaya pushed it, or that the wesley types swollow the hokum whole.
and, btw, spending has not increased 40%... spending has gone up because there are more students, but, per student, spending has decreased... dramatically..
Just like real wages have dropped relative to the price of gas, healthcare, food, energy, heat, water, mortgages, rent....
"Spending on education has doubled since the 70's...federal spending on education has also increased by 40% over the last 6 years."
Wow, that in itself sure sounds scary! Maybe there is something to this whole rightwing argument for dismantling our public school system and making education exclusively a market enterprise and only for those who can afford it.
-BUT-
There's also another pesky little statistic that directly affects these numbers: population. The US has balooned from about 205 million in 1970 to over 300 million today.
So let me guess, the argument now becomes: "We should be able to educate millions more kids with the same amount of money."
"I dont know how the republicans have been so successful at getting Americans to oppose the programs that benefit them"
Because some people want to be personally responsible for their own successes in life and don't want handouts from the government. They view it as a form of charity, which it is. They simply want the government to stay out of their lives, and they want to rely on their own talents and abilities to succeed in life. Relying on the government to do things for you simply creates apathy and laziness.
Yes, too bad that Rush Limbaugh guy didn't feel the same way when he was on welfare! The ironic thing about your post is government spending. Spending, during the last three Republican administrations has created the largest debts our countries have ever seen. If they are going to spend the money, I would at least like to see them invest in our people!
"Spending, during the last three Republican administrations has created the largest debts our countries have ever seen"
I agree. Bush especially has been very liberal on spending issues. The Republicans have been good on tax cuts but bad on spending issues. Reagan was much better than Bush, but even he should have cut spending more than he did. I agree with you 100% that the Republicans haven't been true fiscal conservatives on spending issues.
Then, if this is a top issue for you, why do you vote for them?
Because the Democrats are even worse.
"Because some people want to be personally responsible for their own successes in life and don't want handouts from the government. They view it as a form of charity, which it is. They simply want the government to stay out of their lives, and they want to rely on their own talents and abilities to succeed in life. Relying on the government to do things for you simply creates apathy and laziness."
So if one is not successful, one is not disciplined and therefore not moral? It must be nice to have it all condensed into one nice wallet sized portrait.
Personal responsibility only goes half way, it ignores social responsibility. When one is grateful for the opportunities they have received from living in a wealthy and empowering society, they feel personally responsible to help spread opportunity. It's like being a good neighbor. That is Progressive responsibility.
Health care costs are a worry. Ditch diggers, for example, deserve a fair deal for their essential labor. Hard working Americans earning universal healthcare is only fair. Hard work and self-reliance is nurtured by a sense of security that comes with freedom from worry.
Remember your words if you or a love one are severly injured and are so disabled that you are no longer able to work.
Remember your words when you, a parent or grandparent have to declare bankruptcy because you can't afford hospitalization and treatment for a serious illness.
Remember your words when you or a loved one has to cough up an entire paycheck every month for a prescription medication that will keep you working, or for matter, alive.
Remember your words if your house and your belongings are ever completely destroyed in a natural disaster.
Remember your anti-government rant if one of these things ever happens to you. If you haven't done so, you better get to work on your back up plan for complete self sufficiency during a hardship.
"Remember your words if your house and your belongings are ever completely destroyed in a natural disaster"
I never said that the government shouldn't help those that have been caught in a natural disaster. I don't even want all welfare to be abolished. I simply don't want to live in a welfare state that rewards the lazy and punishes the rich for working hard and being successful. Having a small social safety net is necessary, but we don't need a welfare state in which the government does everything for everybody. We need a much smaller and more efficient government, not a bigger one.
The rich are quite adequately rewarded for accident of birth - over 80% of today's billionaires are descended from financial power. Even Gates didn't start out broke, and work his way up. Reinstate the estate tax, at 100% for every dime over $5mil total estate; and serious taxation of unearned incomes of those who already inherited theirs; rein in the Corporate Frankenstein (either limit the duration for which it can exist; or else make all the officers VP and up, and all the shareholders who can be considered controlling, liable in full for any Corporate infraction, including capital cases; or both); break up the Corporate Media Oligopoly (say, MORA or better, with or without Fairness Doctrine); and start to rebuild the infrastructure we have neglected at least since 1998. Get God out of the public schools, and get government out of the God business. Universal healthcare would be good, and with rational taxation, we can afford that. Smaller government? Not possible so long as there are Repugnants alive - Justice must be served, and those scum must be prosecuted. But, all in all, *I* could stand government at current size, with those few amendments to where the labors of that government are directed.
80 % of American Billionaires or 80% of worldwide billionares? A big difference as it relates to this discussion.
There once was a party of elephants
They no longer have any true relevance
But they stay in the game
By saying Democrats are to blame
Snookering common folk with clever elegance
There once was a President named Bush
his head he had stuck into his tush
He attempted to end
that most hideous bend
But rather than pulling he did push
There once was a party of donkeys
They claimed to care for the poor folks' needs
But as El Rushbo notes
They were only trying to buy votes
And were only using the poor as they please
Rhyme wise and syllable wise it needs some help my Rino dude. But please try again. It's fun.
based on that standard, should our tax dollars continually bail out bankrupt domestic airline and automaker companies? They don't seem to know how to handle it?
I too have noticed that Republican "bootstrap theory" seems to only apply to poor and middle class people.
In the last 25 years, the US government has lavished failed or failing auto companies and airlines and S&Ls with BILLIONS in bailouts, and ne'er a peep from the Republicans, many of whom know this or that person who runs those wobbly enterprises.
Neil Bush anyone?
As for the masses? Bread and circuses? Not even that. Just empty aphorisms about bootstraps and self-reliance.
Republicans have never met a corporation they don't like or a poor/middle class person they like. Why the forward slash between poor and middle class? Because soon, there won't be any difference.
Randy
You're exactly right. All corporate welfare should be immediately ended. It's shameless and doesn't reflect conservative values. I don't believe that it's right for conservatives to criticize the government for giving out welfare to the poor when they hand out money to corporations on a regular basis. We need to end subsidies for corporations and limit subsidies for the poor. We need a smaller government in every area. The government shouldn't be in the business of handing out money to anybody.
We can end corporate welfare by instituting publically financed elections. This would cause a cesation of corporate kickbacks for campaign donations.
We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
How long before Hillary is saying:
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."
Which Communist said this: "From him to whom much is given, much is expected"?
I think the big commie in question is Jesus.
Randy
OK mom.... let's say you have a family with 2 parents and 3 children... One parent makes a lot of money and decides not to feed the family. The other parent asks the greedy one why won't she feed the her and the kids and she says 'I earned it and you didn't- handouts just enable you..' Yes, it's a silly analogy, but the point is we ALL are one family and helping the masses with education, day care, housing, food, utilities, etc. helps EVERYONE out... the rich ones will still be rich, but the OVERALL benefits of the country will rise...
It isn't about the "rich still being rich", or who has plenty or enough and who doesn't. Our government is not in the business of determining how much money a person "needs" or should have......and then determine how much they should get and redistribute elsewhere. The government is here to remove barrier that impede opportunity. Leveling the playing field is not the government's job.
Tommy: I've told you this before and STILL it doesn't sink in.
The US Government's job IS TO REDISTRIBUTE MONEY.
They do it all the time. The US budget is a graph of how they plan to REDISTRIBUTE tax dollars or the proceeds from debt sold.
OVER HALF of that redistribution goes toward the War Department (time to ditch the Orwellian Defense Department moniker). How did that happen?
The government made it so, on purpose, or would you contend that where they money goes is the result of a crap load of darts?
Also: what about all the government bailouts? Why is it the government's job to help a failing or failed corporation but not a failing or failed life? I submit that this motto ought to be on our money and inside and outside every government building:
"Billions for war, not a penny for the poor."
And take God off of all currency. God told me He is sick of the USA flouting His support for their murderous and cruel ways.
Hey, I didn't ask for a one-on-one with the Big Guy.
He was just apologizing for Jerry Falwell.
Randy
"OVER HALF of that redistribution goes toward the War Department"
Our national defense benefits everybody. If we didn't have a national defense, you would be dead. It's not a redistribution of income in any way.
"Also: what about all the government bailouts? Why is it the government's job to help a failing or failed corporation but not a failing or failed life"
It's not. Most conservatives and libertarians oppose corporate welfare. It's only the big government Republicans in Congress who support corporate welfare.
"God told me He is sick of the USA flouting His support for their murderous and cruel ways"
Nice way to bash your own country. If you don't like it here you can always move to Cuba. I'm sure Fidel Castro would love to have you there.
I so admire the love it or leave it canard, which assumes that one must gush all over everything American to live here. Check your history, sparky. The Consitution doesn't require the swearing of a loyalty oath, as you would deem suitable for us all.
That is what the commies do.
Are you now or have you ever been a communist, Rino Hunter? Yes, no? Quickly, so we can all gauge how American you REALLY are.
Randy
Mr. L,
I agree with redistribution of wealth...but NOT by taxing.
CEO's of companies as well as upper management should make less, and the money saved from their salaries should *trickle down* to the workers.
Without workers, nobody including upper management makes $$
Now I realize my suggestion will never come to pass, greed being the problem, but I'd rather see paychecks go up, rather than taxes.
Entitlements should be as temporary as possible. If you're down on your luck, then help should be there to get you back on your feet. But no one should expect to be taken care of permanently. It's unfair to expect those that work hard for their money to support those that don't or won't.
As far as the common good goes, cut spending rather than raise anybody's taxes. I know most of you here dislike Neil Boortz, but his Fair Tax Plan is a better alternative to what we have now.
Here's the way I view CEO pay: If a CEO makes 5 million a year, he could give up a million of that and still live like a king. That million could be used to give 1,000 employees an extra $1,000 per year, and actually make an impact on their lives.
I can't help but wonder if the "free market" is actually at work in determining CEO pay, or if there isn't an artificial "good ole' boy" system determining these obscene salaries. Isn't it true that a lot of these CEOs serve on each other's boards of directors? If the CEO of a corporation is making 10 million, I refuse to believe that they couldn't find several qualified people who would do the job just as well for half that amount.
Nerzog,
Do you seriously want the government determining how much money people should be able to live "like a king", for example? So some bureacratic Washington politician sits there and says "OK, that's enough, you have plenty now - no more for you".
That unthinkable frightening scenario will never happen, hopefully.
No, I'm not proposing a government solution. There probably is no solution, but you cannot claim to favor "market forces" if you support the obscene salaries being raked in by CEOs. I don't think you can make the case that these salaries are determined by the free market.
Nerzog,
These CEO salaries, as vulgar as they may appear to you and me, are indeed market driven. They are determined by the board of directors of a company as compensation to that individual for maximizing profits for a particular company.......they have every right to set that salary, don't they?
Now I agree that workers of that company may live paycheck to paycheck, while the CEO rakes in millions, but that is the system of free market enterprise we live in. Is it fair? No, but it isn't about fairness and equity - it's about capitalism and what the market will pay....just look at professional athletes and the money they make?
I agree with you, the solution does not lie in government, but rather creating opportunity where the hourly worker is given the chance to work hard and move up and make a better life for him or herself........and someday sit on that board, or be the CEO - it has and does happen.
Yeah, dream on. It's about the wealthy scratching each other's backs. As for professional athletes, you can make more of a case that their salaries are, indeed, market driven. The public determines their salaries by either buying or not buying tickets to the games. Does anyone choose which brand of gasoline to buy based on who the CEOs are?
Does anyone choose which brand of gasoline to buy based on who the CEOs are?
The answer to your question is…probably. Not because of the CEOs name but because of his/her WORK. That's the point...their work makes their companies prosper and that is what makes them worth their pay. The professional athlete’s skill/talent sells tickets…like a CEO, their work makes their organization prosper. Your apparent outrage over what other people earn is nothing more than typical liberal class envy. Since tax revenues are up across the board because of the Bush tax cuts and the top 50% (the rich) pay 96.7% all taxes collected, Clinton’s call for raising taxes on the rich is nothing more than a political ploy designed to stir up class warfare and generate votes from the “victims”.
Tommy,
I understand what you're getting at, but look at Wal-Mart as an example.
The owners, CEO, upper management & share holders have made millions, probably billions [?] in some instances. Is it be beyond their intelligence to understand that without the folks working registers & filling shelves that they wouldn't have made a penny? At least share some of the profits by giving those people a decent wage & benefits. It's simply greed that keeps this concept from happening.
The government shouldn't regulate salaries, but decency should.
J,
I don't disagree with you at all about common decency. However, nobody is forcing anyone to work at Wal Mart either. I just feel a person who is unhappy with their wage or salary at Wal Mart would be better served to learn new skills and make themselves more marketable in pursuit of a higher paying job......rather than complaining about how much their CEO makes.
Your point is well taken.
Isn't it amazing that those same CEOs are always looking for someone to do the job that two people used to do, but for less compensation than one of the "downsized" employees used to make.
That is an interesting concept NERZOG. I can't say that I whole heartedly disagree with your idea. My question would be: Should the CEO be forced to give a million? If so, by who? I am by no means a believer in "Reaganomics" but, it seems a bit unfair to say that someone who works and makes alot of money should be forced to give that money to others who may need it. Like it or not, such a practice will ultimately destroy incentive to succeed. I think that your idea would be more realistic if it was a practice of corporate responsibility in which the company would establish a more equitable practice of profit sharing. If that is what you were espousing, then I guess we don't disagree here. The people at the top should definitely make more money. That is a reality and a good practice in my opinion. It is an incentive to be the best and to have the best people in those positions. It is interesting to know at what income level the government considers someone to be wealthy. Take that into consideration and ask yourself in relation to that amount if in fact you are giving enough of your paycheck to the "common good".
That's why I support the graduated income tax. There is no objective or scientific way to do any of this. That's why politicians are constantly wrangling over it, I suppose.
Your absolutely right, NERZOG. I have always been a firm belliever in the concept that the more you make the more you pay in taxes. I view it as a trade off to those who are wealthy since this country offers the opportunity to become wealthy. But, the fact is that many people that the government considers wealthy are overtaxed. You are essentially considered wealthy in this country if you earn over $84,000. That is really not alot of money to raise a family on, considering mortgages, car payments, daycare, health insurance, etc. I don't mind seeing the uber rich pay a higher portion of taxes. I guess one could see it as a drawback to being rich, I see it as payment for an oppoortunity to continue to earn vast sums of money. In any event, I think we can all agree tha the current system is broken, too confusing, and unecessary. I hate to agree with Boortz on anything except his views on the drug war and his disdain for the hard core christian right, but the Fair Tax plan is worth a look. I kinda of like it.
I have always been a firm believer in the concept that the more you make the more you pay in taxes.
And that is exactly what happens. The top 1% of income earners pay 37% of all taxes collected. The top 50% of income earners pay 96.7% all taxes collected. That means the lower 50% of income earners (that’s half the tax paying public) pay only pay 3.3% of the total tax revenue collected. I believe that this proves the more you make…the more you pay in taxes. Bush cut tax rates not revenue as demonstrated in the fact that record revenue is being collected even with the Bush tax cuts in effect. As I’ve said before Clinton’s call for raising taxes on the rich is nothing more than a political ploy designed to stir up class warfare and generate votes from the “victims”.
And I am also with you on the Fair Tax. I hope we see it one day.
Yes, CB, people who eat the most at a restaurant pay the most tax on their bill too.Poor things. Now ask me how much of your money I want, and why you're being punished for being successful, and why I envy rich people. I love it all !
Or, you might want to read about some tax myths.
So you don’t believe that record amounts of revenue are being collected despite the Bush tax cuts? Because of the tax cuts more people are employed, more goods and services are being delivered, more tax revenue is being collected and the federal deficit is going down. The myth is that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. What a crock! The over-taxation of the rich and the re-distribution of wealth that results is nothing more than an attempt to win votes from the poor victims who aren’t wealthy. The fact is eliminating the Bush tax cuts would cause a significant economic slow down and in the end…less revenue being collected, higher unemployment rates and higher deficits. It’s just that simple.
Hey Jeter
Careful with all that sympathy for "the workers" talk. Someone's liable to think you're one of us commies.
Hey King I'm upper management and I'm willing to make less so others can have more.
Guess that does put me a bit to the Left on this issue...almost a Liberal Pinko Commie even ;-)
Just don't tax me! I'd rather that money goes directly to workers paychecks, not the government which has a bad habit of wasting it. Like on a friggin illegal War...
I could not agree more.
And don't worry, before you hit that slippery slope to a full fledged "Commie Bastard" I'll push you back.
J,
The Fair tax is indeed the way to go, and the most nonpartisan solution to the tax mess we have in this country.....it abolishes the IRS and stops punishing success and earnings.
There once was a pol, Rudy G
His number of marriages is three
He needs to obfuscate
His positions that religous folk hate
So he throws out a foil, Hillary C
I can think of few things that would make Hillary seem like a good choice to the Republican masses, but ironically Rudy may have shown the way if her handlers are smart enough to spot the opening provided for her.
There are few things as straight to the gut visceral as a woman carefully selecting and preparing food for her family, or selecting and buying clothing for them. It is a massive part of the very heart of what family and home is for most citizens. When anyone thinks of home and "Mom" is almost always associated with a wonderful meal presented with love, and of the woman who helped you to look your best and gave you confidence by telling you how great you looked.
Unfettered can easily be revealed as an inappropriate word choice for a dangerously uncontrolled market that is striking at the heart of every home by allowing poisonous food into the U.S. to be eaten by its children and toxic chemicals to be allowed in the manufactoring of clothing and other items (the lead paint baby bibs/children's wear).
All that Hillary's handlers would have to do is have her shown talking with women about their worries in buying food and clothing (and other items) at the Market. Once the image of the stock market and Their Market is firmly solidified in their minds as one and the same through these visuals and the dangers from lack of controls are literally held up in hands in front of them, the beliefs and goals of so called free market supporters will take on a dark ominous meaning to those who do not get it yet, and Common Good is understood not to be welfare benefits for the lazy but as desperately needed rules and programs to keep families safe from those who would expose their children to anything to make a profit.
I do not expect it though since by her long ago speech in India, she and her staff seem to be actually just as mad for global profits at any price to be paid by U.S. citizens as any other mad globalists are.
Hillary will never seem like a good choice to R's. Everytime she opens her mouth, it costs them money. The D's, in general, have a habit of that.
Politicians of both parties tend to cost taxpayers money (and not just "R"'s, despite what Rush has been telling you).
"D"s and other non- "R's just don't spend as much time crying about it.
"But these outlets did not report that, when she made the comments, Clinton was talking about President Bush's tax cuts, which disproportionately benefited the wealthy"
This is a blatantly false claim by Media Matters. The lower and middle classes actually got a bigger percentage tax cut with Bush's tax cuts. The rich ended up getting more money back overall, because they pay more in taxes to begin with. The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of the taxes to begin with, and it makes sense that if you're going to have a tax cut, you should include the people who actually pay the taxes! If you have a tax cut of 10% and there is someone making $300,000 per year, then that person would get a tax cut of $30,000. On the other hand, someone who is making $30,000 per year would get a tax cut of $3,000. The wealthier person ends up getting more money back, but each person gets a tax cut of 10%. That's kind of how the Bush tax cuts work, except that the lower and middle classes actually get a bigger percentage reduction in their marginal tax rate.
Also, it doesn't matter that Hillary was talking to wealthy people. The rich shouldn't be discriminated against simply because they have worked hard and become successful. If you're going to raise taxes you should raise taxes for everybody, not just the rich. Nobody should be discriminated against.
It's not discrimination, just reality. The rich have benefitted more from living in the greatest country in the world. Why shouldn't they pay taxes in proportion to their good fortune? Does Rush Limbaugh work harder than a brick layer, or a truck driver? Hard work alone is not what makes people rich. There' s little bit of luck involved, as well.
I'd say he must work pretty hard, shoveling all of that sh_t.
Well, you have a point...and all that water he's carrying for the GOP has to get heavy after a while. Yeah, maybe you're right...Rush does deserve a tax cut. I mean, the money he gets back would have been wasted by welfare queens to buy shoes for their kids or some such nonsense....better to let Rush build that walk-in cigar humidor in his Florida mansion.
Everyone, listen! Two tiny little words solve ALL of our problems. They will create the largest shift of power from the government back to the people that this country has EVER seen. They will make the United States the banking, manufacturing, and investment capital of the world all at once. These two words will eliminate the lobbyists and special interest groups. They will return government back to a position of servitude. What are these two tiny little words?
FAIR TAX
Don't you mean "Flat Tax"? "Fair Tax" carries with it a requisite judgement as to what is and isn't fair. Conservatives constantly tell us that life is not about "fairness". They'd never sign on to a "fair tax".
No Typo,
F A I R T A X
(H.R.25/S25)
Read and learn
The smaller the percentage of the population is that pays the majority of taxes within a modern industrialized nation indicates the same percentage of inequality and suffering that exists within that nation.
Exactly how difficult is that to figure out?
The smaller the number that has everything the smaller the number that pays for everything. If they refuse to pay then you get decay and the eventual destruction of that nation state.
They can either share the burden by sharing the wealth or they can pay all of the bills. There really is no other option that exists within reality if they want to continue the existence of their nation.
I guess that would be true if not for the fact that our country is not as unfair as you would like to believe. We have the highest standard of living in the world. I guess we would be better off with no rich people. We could all live together in harmony where everybody has the same income. We wouldn't need to share. We could all wear our birkenstocks to the park for a granola fest where the music and food is free.
Fair Tax Solution?
Exactly what is it about the tax free family foundations racket that all of the elites run already that some of you do not comprehend?
Perhaps if you attended a charity event in West Palm that cost the hostess in excess of two or three hundred thousand dollars to throw in order to raise one or two thousand dollars in charity money to give, you would clearly understand why a "fair tax" is so appealing to them.
THE FAIR TAX ACT (HR25/S25)
Don't turn your back on this one, and don't be afraid of change.
Oh, you mean the National Sales Tax. Sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation. People who have to spend most of their income just to survive would be disproportionately burdened. Do you really think this would work?
Do you know ANYTHING about this legislation?
I know that its proponents make a lot of lofty claims. If they eliminate the IRS, as they claim, who will administer the tax? Who will decide who gets the "rebate" and for what goods? Do you honestly believe that poor people won't be affected by inflating the cost of all "non-essential" goods by 23%?
Thank you for answering my question. You don't know ANYTHING about this legislation. Goodbye.
The Fair Tax is a VERY Orwellian term.
It is actually a National Sales Tax that exempts taxes up to the poverty level. So what? In the end, it is a heavy tax on the Middle Class who spend everything they make, some of whom, with the present tax scheme, pay no income taxes, only nominal FICA taxes (7.65%).
Furthermore, this is a ploy to destroy Social Security, which the Republican Party has been bleeding to kill for decades. Also, business to business transactions are exempt from the tax, which means it will fall heaviest on the end of the line consumer who spends all of his or her income.
The result: rich people, who tend to save not spend everything they make, will have a LOWER total tax rate (as a percentage of income) than the Middle Class and corporations will pay NOTHING for doing business with other corporations.
What is fair about that?
Randy
You know absolutely NOTHING about the legislation, either.
FANTAGOR, NERZOG = CLUELESS
Then maybe you can explain it to us. I know that Neal Boortz is one of its leading proponents. That being the case, it must be a bad idea. I also know that it will create as many problems as it solves. You disagree?
Yes, I disagree. Don't like Boortz? Fine. Don't read the book. He didn't write the bill. Visit the website! Learn something.
Look here and you will see everything I said is TRUE, even if Congressman Linder doesn't want to admit it.
Randy
http://linder.house.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Resources.Home&Resource_id=1
Oh good, the Fair Tax is making a comeback. I guess I'd think it was pretty cool if I had millions invested and only needed to spend a small amout of my income on living expenses.
Unfortunately, I think , like most Americans, after food, housing, gas, insurance, clothing (the things I need to buy) I don't have a huge chunk of un-taxable income. If you do, good for you.
I think every other tax-related subject has been covered here- One poster said that, as he made good money, he doesn't mind being taxed higher on it. This was answered with the reflexive and not clever, non-big-picture-seeing "why don't you send your money to the IRS?" .
And we even were honored with the "Rich people didn't get as big a percentage tax cut as poor and middle class taxpayers" BS.
I think I'll go find the nearest billionaire CEO and wave a few hundred dollar bills in his face, taunting him with my bigger percentage savings. That'll show him!
Typical class-envy hype from some factory worker, insurance claim rep or college professor.
Yeah, Jason. I think the Founding Fathers had that same "class envy" in regards to the Royals. That's why they started this country.
Typical trust fund baby or gullible middle-class sucker.
Funny, I thought this country was founded by rich, white imperialists, who has major issues with paying too much taxes.
HBL,
What is the big picture then? My comments were a simple supposition. If one feels that they are not paying enough taxes then the government will certaintly allow you to pay more if you like. The gentleman I responded to clearly indicated that he would gladly give back his tax cuts. Your comments seem to indicate that you are happy with the currrent tax system and would be much happier if the rich paid more. Are you undertaxed?
Great link!! Did you actually read the legislation yet?
Linder's summary answers my questions adequately.
My reaction: thank God for Democrats.
Randy
Fantagor is correct.
"Although the FairTax Plan would eliminate Social Security and Medicare taxes, it would not eliminate the programs. Boortz correctly explains that "under our current tax code, these programs can be maintained only by increasing the tax on those who work, reducing benefits for those who have retired, or by increasing the age of retirement." The FairTax Plan solves this problem because it would fund Social Security and Medicare out of general revenues." [link to www.mises.org] the creator of this monster states it himself in his book about it.
Fantagor took it straight from the horse's mouth in other words.
Fantagor said it was a ploy to destroy Social Security. You just proved that it keeps it alive.
You're confusing.
No, it is a plot to destroy SS.
If SS is funded through general discretionary budgeted revenues then what is to stop the government from simply ceasing to fund SS?
Nothing.
If would be rudimentary for a Republican controlled Congress to shift funds elsewhere, like, for example to fund more WARS, and then laugh as the world's most successful social program goes under.
Randy
Why are you so eager to dissuade yourself from the merits of the Fair Tax. Tell me, what is so good about our current tax system? Are you a fan of the IRS? It is a ridiculous notion to think that this plan is a veiled ploy to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Show me the political will and public support to eliminate these programs and you may have a point. How would the implementation of a Fair Tax erode public support for SS and Medicare? Your argument is a talking point that does not stand up to scrutiny. You must be one of the folks who essentially pay no income taxes and love the big return you get every year from everyone else who pays.
cut off cont -
since Social Security and Medicare would be funded out of general revenues the FairTax rate would also have to go up to fund the ever-increasing cost of these programs. Then there are the escalating costs of the new prescription drug plan. And if the amount of the prebate "is updated every year to keep up with inflation," the FairTax rate will have to be raised in like manner. How can Boortz recognize that "there is absolutely no limit to the government's desire for your money" and then express hope that the FairTax rate "will go down in the future" if "Congress can keep government spending down"?[link to www.mises.org] it will become impossible eventually to maintain the programs at a certain point and not crash the entire economy.
READ THE BILL
"Because some people want to be personally responsible for their own successes in life and don't want handouts from the government...They simply want the government to stay out of their lives, and they want to rely on their own talents and abilities to succeed in life. Relying on the government to do things for you simply creates apathy and laziness."
I had once believed that we were all masters of our fate--that we could mold our lives into any form we pleased...I had overcome deafness and blindness sufficiently to be happy, and I supposed that anyone could come out victorious if he threw himself valiantly into life's struggle. But as I went more and more about the country I learned that I had spoken with assurance on a subject I knew little about. I forgot that I owed my success partly to the advantages of my birth and enviornment ...Now, however, I learned that the power to rise in the world is not within the reach of everyone. -- Helen Keller
Great quote,sikvod00. I'm sure one of the dittoheads will be along shortly to call Helen Keller an enabler.Couldn't she just tell those people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and quit fomenting class warfare?
I think that's the main dividing line on this issue. I realize there are people who came into this world with far greater advantages than I did, and others with far less.
I've seen brilliant, hard-working people barely scratching by in life. I know complete lazy dullards who arevery well of, through accident of birth or fortunate circumstances.
In my experience, the people who have done really well mainly through their own efforts and talents are far less likely to attribute their success to those things, and more likely to acknowledge the small part that luck played.
The people I know personally who were handed most of their success (as I'd guess with some of the bootstraps-pulling "rugged individuals" who post here) tend to think they did it all themselves, as is obvious by how confidently they lecture others about self-sufficiency and the virtues of the obscenely wealthy..
Huntingbeach & Sikvod, both post were excellent!!.
The campaign on compassion and God but they live by me and me first.
"I've got mine"........Republican mantra.
OUR ELECTIONS ARE GETTING WORSE. ITS A REAL DOG AND PONY SHOW OUT THERE BUT I THINK WE HAVE SOME GOOD CANDIDATES ON BOTH SIDES NOW. WHICH CANDIDATE DO YOU FEEL SAFE WITH AND CONFIDENT ABOUT?
Now that you all have shown your sincere appreciation for the hard work and contributions from the......"greedy, filthy, evil, robber-baron, back-stomping, slave-driving, lucky, unethical, silver-spooned, corrupt, slimy, cigar-smoking, obscenely weathly".....of our fine country, let's get your little "we love everybody" hearts going again.
Seeing as the top 10% of all income earners in the country funded 68.12% of all income tax collected last year, let's "give them a little something back" for their kindness.
Lets give those same 10% of people the equivalent of 68.12% of the voting power in this country. Kind of like a corporation: the more shares you buy, the more votes you get.
In fact, we could do that for everyone. The more income taxes you pay, the more your vote is worth. If you're lucky enough to not pay ANY taxes then, well, maybe next year. If you want to you can choose to buy some votes if you like, but you certainly don't have to. After all, voting is not a federally guaranteed right.
Something to think about. Stop being so hard on the "filthy rich" (I wonder why nobody ever uses the term "filthy poor". Seems more appropriate.) Ciao
Am I hearing the raw dollar argument in this post? Yes, I am. Rich people pay more in raw dollars, so woe is them.
We should all have such woes. But we don't.
It's all about the percentage of what you make. Rich people pay more total dollars, but as a percentage of what they make they pay about the same as the middle 20%.
I am not impressed with millionares paying twenty-two cents on the income-dollar in taxes at the cost of watching the debt ceiling grow like a demonic cancer earting away at the foundation of the country.
Gosh, my tax bill is $500,000, how am I to get along with the net $1,500,000? Country club dues don't grow on trees, y'know. And painting my 30 room mansion isn't cheap.
Oh, life is such a burden when you're rolling in fat stacks of cash. Jeeves, where is my shrimp cocktail?!
And in case you weren't thinking, rich people's "votes" DO count for more than everyone else, for they have the privilege of bribing, I mean contributing money to the campaigns of EVERY damn official that is willing to peddle their special interests.
Little people vote in the booth, rich people vote at the fund raiser.
We should all wield such power and influence. But we don't.
Elitism isn't thinking you are better than everyone else, it's having the money to back up your claim even after those "robbers" at the Treasury Dept. take their cut.
Randy
"Gosh, my tax bill is $500,000, how am I to get along with the net $1,500,000? Country club dues don't grow on trees, y'know. And painting my 30 room mansion isn't cheap."
You are all so full of hate for the successful, aren't you? I've got news for you. Golf and shrimp all day? That's stereotyping. Not all rich people live like they're in Pasadena. Go find out who the top 10% of income earners includes. You'll be surprised who you find there. You'll find Home-builders, store owners, manufacturers and distributors. You'll find community leaders and strong, civic-minded figures.
My tax liability last year was over $700,000. You know what that means to me? It means I can't open a new machine shop this year. It means that 50 great paying skilled jobs won't be created and the town of Hutchison will lose out on almost $2 million dollars worth of economic growth.
You see, moron, I create jobs. To date, I've created 277 of them. My payroll provides those 277 families with over $10 million in income each year.
I boost economies. Those families use that money to buy houses, send their children to good schools, invest in their retirement, take the family out for a nice dinner or a vacation.
I build our communities. Me and thousands of others like me. We allow small towns to work and thrive. We sponsor high school sports teams and little league baseball teams. We fill communities with life.
But not in Hutchison. Not this year. Thanks, Uncle Sam.
Thanks for that dose of reality. And thanks to you and others like you who make this country great!
Yeah, Jason,you're almost like Jesus Christ, if you do say so yourself.
If I send you a few bucks will you stop whining about your tax liability that's more than most Americans gross income this century?
Read the Art of War.
What happens to nations that build a corrupt and greedy upper class has been repeated throughout history, and it will be again.
The wealthy are not gods, they have and can still be overwhelmed by the masses. Greed blinds them to this truth. It always does.