by Jack
The short answer is, it’s all about financial demographics and class warfare.
America is still feeling the crushing financial burden of the Great Recession, and another recession looms near. Normally this would not be a good thing for the incumbent President… unless that president knew how to spin and engage in class warfare.
From any responsible and informed perspective President Obama is largely responsible for dragging out and exacerbating the Great Recession. He pressed for the bailouts and Keynesian policies that in recent hindsight all failed us and left us in massive debt. However, he’s escaping responsibility and accountability by using this man made financial crisis to incite anger and resentment towards the rich, those in the top 20% (see chart below).
This diversion tactic is as old as politics itself, but it was honed to a fine art during the cold war by Communist Russia. Back then every problem of the masses was traced back to the Great Satan. If crops failed it was because America poisoned them. If Aids killed, it was because of a CIA experiment, not unsafe sex acts. If you were in poverty it was because of Capitalism, not you bad choices and the most despicable diversion in the last century, “If we could only get rid of the Jews then everything… ” This is how populism works, you find an emotional hot button and press it hard! Tell the masses it’s not your fault and its not their fault, its the….(insert enemy name here) fault!
Populism means majority and the last time I checked a majority vote wins in honest elections. It’s a simple, devious and yet extremely effective tactic, especially during a crisis when passions are already high.
This is how communism was supposed to win over the free market societies and they might have won too, if the cold war was not so long. Time exposes flaws, so time does not favor communism or its wandering playboy son, socialism.
For President Obama to get his message across to a [majority] It requires little from them, no understanding of financial nuances, no understanding of capitalism, no understanding about money supply or even the national debt, in fact the less they know about such things the better. All they need to know is that 20% of America has captured 93% of the wealth and that’s not fair!
It’s a message that sells and unless you could suddenly make everyone smarter there is no effective way to counter it, which brings up the something else on the decline in America… basic intelligence.
God help us, because the democrats sure won’t and I have every reason to believe that the republicans can’t, not this time anyway. And that’s how Obama wins.
Jack, almost nothing you said in this article is true.
“From any responsible and informed perspective President Obama is largely responsible for dragging out and exacerbating the Great Recession. He pressed for the bailouts and Keynesian policies that in recent hindsight all failed us and left us in massive debt.”
The bailouts did not “fail us.” They worked. Even Mitt Romney acknowledges that now, although he’s taking credit for it as if it was his idea, even though he criticized Obama for the bailouts originally (just another day in the life of a professional flip-flopper!):
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/103040/romney-fehrnstrom-gm-chrysler-detroit-auto-bailout
The bank bailouts worked as well, and were backed by a bipartisan consensus:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/09/19/zakaria-don-t-forget-that-the-bailouts-worked.html
Which other Keynesian policies are you referring to? The stimulus? That absolutely worked, according to the CBO and a majority of economists:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42715
I just now posted many, many other links to verify that the stimulus worked in the last comment I left on the “Pay Your Fair Share!” article. Or just Google the phrase “stimulus worked.”
Most economists agree that the stimulus, far from “dragging out and exacerbating the Great Recession” as you falsely claim, actually made recovery possible. A slow recovery, sure, but a recovery nonetheless. Are none of these economists operating from a “responsible and informed perspective?”
The PPACA, perhaps Obama’s biggest achievement (and most derided by his critics), is predicted to reduce the deficit according to the CBO. Repealing it, which is the Republican plan, is predicted to raise the deficit by $109 billion.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/239747-cbo-says-health-reform-reduces-deficit-by-109-billion
“However, he’s escaping responsibility and accountability by using this man made financial crisis to incite anger and resentment towards the rich, those in the top 20% (see chart below).”
I have no idea where you have gotten the idea that those in the top 20% count as the “rich.” For the purposes of tax policy, only those who make $250,000 a year qualify as rich. The number of people who make that amount of money make up only the top 2%–not the top 20%.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/apr/10/barack-obama/how-many-americans-make-less-250000-year/
President Obama has only advocated raising taxes on the top 2% of earners. Why did you multiply that number tenfold in this article?
“FACT: 80% will out vote 20% any day of the week.”
Again, the 20% number is pulled out of thin air and has no relevance to any of Obama’s proposed policies or his rhetoric. But even if that number did make sense, this equation still wouldn’t. You’re assuming that those you qualify as “poor” will all vote one way, and those you qualify as “rich” will all vote another. But obviously that’s not true; there are many poor conservatives who will vote for Mitt Romney, and there are many rich liberals who will vote for Barack Obama. I won’t speculate on the reasons for that.
I hold on to the naive hope that whoever wins this election will be the person who has the facts on their side. Unfortunately, your article doesn’t really validate that hope of mine.
Finally, Jack, I will ask you the same question I asked Tina: Why do you concern yourself so much with alleged “class warfare” against the rich, but say nothing about the class warfare rhetoric leveled against the poor by FOX News and other conservative pundits? This John Stewart video contains several highlights, but only scratches the surface of how families living below the poverty line–families like mine–are routinely demeaned as “lazy,” “parasites,” “moochers” and “animals” who don’t know how good we’ve got it. (After all, 99% of us own refrigerators!)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare—the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over
If you are really concerned about “class warfare,” why do you only complain about one side–and even then, the side with the most power and influence?
And this isn’t just rhetoric; these remarks have been accompanied by calls for cuts to social services, financial aid for college and even tax increases on the poor! These measures would have a direct negative impact on my family and many others. That’s why I’m voting for Obama in November–because of the class warfare your party is waging against my family.
“Which other Keynesian policies are you referring to? The stimulus? That absolutely worked…”
Hah! Just wait until the trillions run up for this mal-investment has to be paid. The gummit running up over a trillion in new debt every year is a recipe for long term disaster even if you see some temporary short term gain. All you have done is give a debt junky a quick fix. You really should read some Austrian economics.
According to today’s Rasmussen Report Romney still has a chance. Obamas only hope is to reverse the downward economy between now and the election. Not likely in 99 days.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting 47% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
In his weekly newspaper column, Scott Rasmussen concludes that for Obama to win, he will need to improve his own job approval rating between now and Election Day. For that to happen, perceptions of the economy will have to reverse their current downward trend. If youd like Scott to speak to your organization, meeting, or conference, please contact Premiere Speakers.
Peggy and Tina, I agree there is always a chance that Romney could pull it off. Politics and voters are a funny bunch there are no guarantees until the deciding vote is cast.
But it’s no surprise that the Right is putting all it’s energies into re-writing recent history.
Romney’s foray out into the world, for the purpose of establishing his foreign policy creds … it’s not going very well.
But don’t you lose heart. The Shrub had … has … a virulent case of foot-in-mouth, but that didn’t keep him from getting elected.
Joseph … just so you know … GM has paid us back. AIG has nearly paid us back. Citi and the rest are paying us back.
The trouble is, actually, that none of these private sector type entities are willing to take any risks in an economy wherein the chief drivers … us … are refusing to spend money we don’t have.
So, who can be got to take the plunge, borrow big pots of cheap money and build trains with it? Why, our government, of course!
If, and only if, the freshman class is retired in November. We shall see.
Progressives are not interested in a thriving economy. They are interested in power…for themselves, of course…and they will do and say anything to stay in power.
Obama promised if his “stimulus” bill passed, the unemployment rate would never exceed 8%, and would decline to 5.8%. He said with confidence, “If I don’t have that done in three years, then this is going to be a one-term proposition.”
Unemployment today remains over 8% with no chance that it will come down this year.
Not long ago Obama said, “Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years.”
The dishonesty here has to do with two things: 1. If he had gotten his way congress would have spent more than they did, and 2. Tarp repayments helped bring deficits down.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2012/07/why-obama-will-be-re-elec.html#comments
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html
What a deceiver this man is!
His failed record is there for anyone to see. We are all experiencing it in one way or another. I recommend the following articles if you want a lot of details:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html
http://theccpp.org/2012/07/obamanomics-the-final-nail-in-the-discredited-keynesian-coffin.html
http://theacru.org/acru/obamas_budget_the_decline_and_fall_of_the_american_economy/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/24/obama-after-three-years-of-high-unemployment-we-tried-our-plan-and-it-worked/?singlepage=true
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-obama-on-his-economic-policy-we-tried-our-plan-and-it-worked/
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Hybrid/story?id=86057&page=1
Here are a few highlights from the above articles in no particular order:
Democrats and Obama were very hard on President Bush”s economic record. To now claim that Obama’s abysmal record has been better is just ridiculous.
A walk down memory lane…what they said:
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/reid-wrong-on-bushs-economic-record/
Smarmy Senator Obama in 2004 on Bush economy (audio):
http://newsninja2012.com/bush-jobs-environment-created-314k-in-may-2004-obama-ridiculed/
Obama called Bushs debt record unpatriotic. Yet he is fine with his own $5.1 trillion in debt in just three years.
I dont know how they’ve been bamboozling folks into thinking that they are the responsible, fiscally-disciplined party. They run up these wild debts and then when we take over we have to clean it up. – President Obama
Obama is the master bamboozler! He didn’t clean anything up…he doubled down!
OBAMA MUST BE TURNED OUT, FIRED, SENT TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINES. Thanks for the opportunity to say so Jack.
“God help us, because the democrats sure won’t and I have every reason to believe that the republicans can’t, not this time anyway.”
Ah, but they are trying hard, you gotta give them credit. Doing their darnest to throw poor people off the voter rolls in five states … five! Did you hear the latest? Some indicted Repug in Florida, in his deposition testimony, he rips the lid off!
Apparently, if he’s goin’ down, he’s taking everybody with him.
Whoopee.
Libby: Don’t get so excited because one of the republicans gets caught while 1000s on the left get away with it. That’s nothing to cheer about.
OBAMA MUST BE TURNED OUT, FIRED, SENT TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINES. Thanks for the opportunity to say so Jack. -Tina
My pleasure Tina and you said it soooo well too! : ) I hope everyone understands why I write things like, Why Obama will be re-elected. I’m angry because we’re all being played. It’s a con. Obama is playing the class warfare game and too many people are too stupid too see it. That’s the point I was trying to make and I hope that came across loud and clear.
Here are two really good Romney adds.
#1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0etEmiCL8M&feature=player_embedded
#2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=llQUrko0Gqw
If Obama is reelected, it will be because Romney is such a poor candidate. If we really want to replace Obama, then they should choose a someone better at the Republican Convention.
Jack, care to take a crack at any of the questions I asked you in my first comment? I’m most interested in hearing why you claimed that Obama is trying to “incite anger and resentment towards the rich, those in the top 20%.” Obama has never called the top 20% “rich”–he’s only used that descriptor to apply to the top 2%. Why did you inflate that percentage tenfold in this article? (I also hope you can answer my questions about your lack of concern over class warfare toward the poor, and which Keynesian plans and bailouts you think failed, but if you can’t get around to those yet, I understand.)
Tina, if you are so concerned about the debt, why do you support repealing the PPACA, an action that the CBO estimates will add $109 billion to the deficit? (The same institution estimates that keeping the PPACA in place will DECREASE the deficit.)
I don’t know where you got your figures Chris. This is an article from June of this year containing the latest information I can find:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/topic/congressional-budget-office/
I knew this would happen. Government always paints a rosy picture when selling new programs. Never have they been accurate. They always end up being much more costly than anticipated.
And by the way, there are still a lot people who don’t have insurance:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-leave-30-mil-without-230800173.html
.
Gee Libby, big surprise that GOP’ers are being indicted across the country for trying to surpress the black vote with racist Eric Holder and his goon squad in control. Did you know one of the indicted in Baltimore is a black man?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/20/248353/maryland-suppressing-black-vote/?mobile=nc
Blatant voter fraud and suppression is likely happening all over America on the donkey side and the racist Eric Holder will encourage it, bless it, and offer cover whenever needed.
Here’s the scoop on the thoroughly discredited Florida “Republican” Jim Greer:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article1242157.ece
Hmmmm…who uses expressions like “whack-a-do, right-wing crazies”?
I can tell you it isn’t Republicans. DEMOCRATS USE THOSE TERMS TO DESCRIBE PEOPLE LIKE JACK AND ME.
This guy sounds more like some scum that is being paid by Acorn or the SEIU to discredit the Tea Party.
Left bloggers are deliriously reporting this because they actually think or want others to believe this scum is 1) A reliable source, and 2)Indicative of the average Republican.
Expect more of this crap in the months ahead.
Okay Chris I will try to answer your questions as time allows. Yes, I claimed Obama is using class warfare because I believe he is. And in particular he’s using it against those who have accumulated the most wealth, the top 20% of earners, but in practical terms we shouldn’t just limited it to those mega-rich types because Obama’s relentless campaign doesn’t.
Let’s take a look at Obama’s words and his team of advisers words talking about the so-call class of rich people (those making over 250k?). You can assign your own dollar amount to this because it’s a moving target at times: “The free market has never been a license to take whatever you can from whomever you can, and Their philosophy is simple. We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. Tim Mak wrote about this speech, “Nobody who reads this speech should be in doubt as to what hes selling but they should think deeply about how much freedom theyre willing to give up to buy it. This was Obama’s now infamous Kansas Speech given in 2011 and right there sets the stage for his election theme. (Read the speech Chris) It was all about money, about how restoring growth, prosperity, balance, and fairness are the defining issue[s] of our time and about how this is a make or break moment for the middle class…and he mentions middle class 25 times. Middle class…that’s where the votes are, that your populist voter base and Obama is telling them they have been used and abused by Wall Street and the rich.
American Spectator reports: Not only has Obama been pushing class warfare unceasingly for three years now, but his chief strategist, David Axelrod, has been employing precisely this tactic against Romney.
The class warfare plan continues and noted by Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin, August 2011, from Politico: “Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession — a sort of political Gordon Gekko,”
David Axelrod, Obama’s Chief strategist said in Jan. on ABC with Geo. Stephanopoulos, “He described Romney as a nefarious outsourcer of “tens of thousands of jobs,” as someone who “closed down more than 1,000 plants, stores, and offices” and “took 12 companies to bankruptcy.” As this rapacious profiteer cheerfully destroyed companies and businesses and shops and shop-owners and the poor and the meek and the downtrodden and the crippled and the lame, “he and his partners made hundreds of millions of dollars.” Axelrod would later say Romney is rooting for economic decline and “He is not a job creator,” scowled Axelrod. “He is a corporate raider.” Corporate raider? Gordon Gecko?
That’s class warfare in a very focus way to destroy the opposition because he can’t run on his own record of achievements.
Rick Bookstaber, who currently serves on President Obamas Financial Stability Oversight Council, writes in his blog, that conservative Tucker Carlsons made the claim that, by repeatedly singling out the wealthy, Democrats are waging class warfare.
In response we get this, There is little that matches the artfulness of the rich in waving off criticism of the widening income gap as class warfare, and there is little that matches the gullibility of the rest in following along.
I am not picking sides in this war, he added, but I believe such a war is justifiable, and indeed ultimately inevitable. Then Bookstaber quotes from Karl Marx! lol “The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the laborer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class. Marx, Das Kapital” Brilliant, he’s quoting from Karl Marx and he’s a presidential advisor?
I’m running short of time Chris, but I will be back to finish my thoughts as soon as I can.
-Jack
“Joseph … just so you know … GM has paid us back. AIG has nearly paid us back. Citi and the rest are paying us back.”
BS, Libster. What did you put in that skull mug today?
The taxpayer is still on the hook for over $17 billion for GM and we are paying for these bailouts in other ways such as the havoc they have created in the bond market.
These bailouts are a rip-off. Here’s just one example:
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/07/26/obamas-general-motors-bailout-still-ripping-us-off/
These bailouts create moral hazard. You ought to research the term. The bailouts encourage the same behavior that caused the financial crisis.
http://www.indytruth.org/library/journals/catojournal/29/cj29n1-12.pdf
But if your Lord and Savior Barack Hussein Obama is for them it must be right, logic be damned.
“So, who can be got to take the plunge, borrow big pots of cheap money and build trains with it? Why, our government, of course!”
Your beloved gummit is already over $16 trillion in debt (and that’s just the Feds, not the states and local gooberments) and adding to that at over a trillion a year and that does not include the unfunded liabilities. When you put those in your beloved Fed gummit is over $130 trillion in debt.
And you want to borrow “big pots of cheap money and build trains” when the fact is the gummit is past broke.
Your thinking is totally insane.
after chucking about the remarks and then the rebuttals on this post from Chris and Libby about everything from trains to privileged tax payers. I want to play as well. Here is my linked contribution and rebuttal to their views,and as it is on U-tube it must be true! I think I read that here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-T3z8qmehQ
hope you enjoy
Tina: “I don’t know where you got your figures Chris.”
Then you must not have read my comments, since I provided sources for every claim I made. I should have linked directly to the CBO rather than the Hill piece, however, when I pointed out how a repeal will increase the deficit. Here is an excerpt directly from the CBO:
“What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 20132022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
What Major Components Result in the Net Increase in Deficits?
Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions:
–The ACA contains a set of provisions designed to expand health insurance coverage, which, on net, are projected to cost the government money. The costs of those coverage expansionswhich include the cost of the subsidies to be provided through the exchanges, increased outlays for Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for certain small employerswill be partially offset by penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects. By repealing those coverage provisions of the ACA, over the 20132022 period, H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion.
–The ACA also includes a number of other provisions related to health care that are estimated to reduce net federal outlays (primarily for Medicare). By repealing those provisions, H.R. 6079 would increase other direct spending in the next decade by an estimated $711 billion.
–The ACA includes a number of provisions that are estimated to increase federal revenues (apart from the effect of provisions related to insurance coverage), mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers. Repealing those provisions would reduce revenues by an estimated $569 billion over the 20132022 period.”
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
Tina: “This is an article from June of this year containing the latest information I can find:”
Really? That’s the latest information you could find? The article you cited is from early April. The CBO report I cited above is from one week ago. Were you not aware that this report existed?
Not only is the Blahous study cited in the Commentary article outdated at this point, it also relies on bad methodology, according to Jonathan Chait:
“You may wonder what methods Blahous used to obtain a more accurate measure of the bills cost. The answer is that he relies on a simple conceptual trick. Medicare Part A has a trust fund. By law, the trust fund cant spend more than it takes in. So Blahous assumes that, when the trust fund reaches its expiration, it would automatically cut benefits.
The assumption is important because it forms the baseline against which he measures Obamas health-care law. Hes assuming that Medicares deficits will automatically go away. Therefore, the roughly $500 billion in Medicare savings that Obama used to help cover the uninsured is money that Blahous assumes the government wouldnt have spent anyway. Without the health-care law, in other words, we would have had Medicare cuts but no new spending on the uninsured. Now we have the Medicare cuts and new spending on the uninsured. Therefore, the new spending in the law counts toward increasing the deficit, but the spending cuts dont count toward reducing it.
That is a completely bizarre assumption. Its not an assumption that any scoring agency ever applies in other situations. We assume that, in the absence of action, Congress will keep paying Medicare benefits. Thats why we have all these projections of future deficits. If Blahouss assumptions are right, then we dont really have an entitlement problem at all. Medicare cant exceed its trust fund, so problem solved! You know how Paul Ryan has been stalking the halls of Congress with disaster-movie music in the backdrop, warning that were about to become Greece? He should relax! (Also, Blahouss methodology would show that Ryans budget looks way worse, too.)
Anyway, thats the trick. Assume the Medicare savings dont count because Medicare would have reduced its payments anyway, and boom Obamacare now increases the deficit.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html
Tina: “And by the way, there are still a lot people who don’t have insurance:”
The article you link to here doesn’t help your case against Obamacare. The portion you quoted clearly states that the reason less people will be insured than previously expected is because of the Supreme Court ruling striking down the portion of the law which would have required states to expand their Medicaid programs. States can now choose whether or not to expand their Medicaid programs, and the CBO is predicting that many of them will choose not to do so. You can’t blame Obama or the law’s proponents for that. What this shows is that more people would be insured had that portion of the law been allowed to stand. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that this portion of the law should have been upheld; I understand the court’s reasoning that this portion was unconstitutional.)
The quoted portion also says: “Thirty million is also the number of people who are now expected to gain coverage under ObamaCare.” That number may not be as high as you or I would like it, but it’s nothing to scoff at.
“Okay Chris I will try to answer your questions as time allows. Yes, I claimed Obama is using class warfare because I believe he is. And in particular he’s using it against those who have accumulated the most wealth, the top 20% of earners, but in practical terms we shouldn’t just limited it to those mega-rich types because Obama’s relentless campaign doesn’t…”
Jack, nowhere here or in the rest of your comment do you answer my question of where you got the 20% statistic. Maybe you didn’t have time to get to it. I hope you will explain this number to me in your next comment, because I genuinely don’t get it.
Alright Chris, I am back. So much to do these days, so little time… anyway, I got this from Mother Earth News. Pretty left of center wouldn’t you agree? They say, “As for Obama’s engaging in class warfarethat is now precisely what he’s doing.
It’s about time and not a moment too soon. In fact, it has been way too long in coming.”
Where did I arrive at 20%, you asked? I didn’t. Chris, this was too easy, it was on the chart about where the wealth of the nation is pooled. Take another look. The chart shows 80% of America owns 7% of the wealth, 20% own the rest. This 20% minority would represent those evil rich hoarding all the cash and keeping their boot on the necks of the workers, according to most left wingers I’ve heard.
Do you need more explaining or do really understand and just don’t agree? If you don’t agree that’s alright, you’re entitled to your opinion. You just asked how I arrived at my opinion and I showed you, that’s all.
Chris I have to admit it seemed like you were right.
However I did some more reading and came across this letter dated July 24, 2012 from the CBO to John Boehner about the effects of House legislation (H.R. 6079) to repeal Obamacare. It contains the following (emphasis mine):
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
“…are in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes.”
CBO projected outcomes for Medicare inn 1965 and they were wrong by an astronomical amount.
What CBO can’t do is score in advance based on actual events as they transpire. History tells us that government is always more costly than projected.
This also from The Hill on July 24th:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/239747-cbo-says-health-reform-reduces-deficit-by-109-billion
Obamacare advocates ask us to believe we can increase the size of government (bureaucracy), spend more to cover the poor (costs passed on to states & not included in federal CBO estimate), offer great healthcare for everyone and at the same time bring costs (and deficits) down.
Obviously these intellectual giants have never run a business. Something for nothing is a fantasy only the inexperienced dreamer can afford.
I’m sticking with my opinion.
Tina, I understand that the numbers from the CBO are by their nature uncertain. However, they’re still the best numbers we have. And if you think the CBO’s primary flaw is that they underestimate costs, isn’t it possible they have underestimated how much it would add to the deficit if we repealed Obamacare?
The study’s I have seen which contradict the CBO’s findings all have significant flaws similar to Blahous’ study.
“Obviously these intellectual giants have never run a business. Something for nothing is a fantasy only the inexperienced dreamer can afford.”
If the CBO is correct that revenue increases and spending cuts in the PPACA will outweigh the increased costs, then it won’t be “something for nothing.” And you have attacked many of the ways to save costs that are present in the PPACA, such as the board that is set to recommend cuts to Medicare.
“Where did I arrive at 20%, you asked? I didn’t. Chris, this was too easy, it was on the chart about where the wealth of the nation is pooled. Take another look. The chart shows 80% of America owns 7% of the wealth, 20% own the rest. This 20% minority would represent those evil rich hoarding all the cash and keeping their boot on the necks of the workers, according to most left wingers I’ve heard.”
Which left-wingers have you heard rail against the “20%?” Which left-wingers have you heard call the 20% “rich?” This is quite a step back from your initial claim that President Obama himself was personally inciting anger toward this number of people. You still have not explained that initial claim.
Chris I gave you the famous Class Warfare speech by Obama, I gave you some of his quotes, I gave you snippets from his advisers, and I gave you observations from all kinds of perspectives include Mother Earth News…If you are not going to accept these sources I’m not going to waste anymore time trying to explain my position further. We disagree, and that’s fine. You have your opinion and I have my opinion. -Jack
“The taxpayer is still on the hook for over $17 billion for GM ….”
Actually, per Pro Publica, it’s $27B, and they haven’t made a payment since January. If you want to get it back, you’ll re-elect Obama. Romney will let them off. You know what them rich boys are.
Jack, I accept your sources, but none of them show Obama going after the top 20%, which was your original claim. You seem to have accused the president of saying something he never said. (And that seems to be the primary strategy against Obama in this campaign.)
The statistic you cite about the top 20% owning 93% of the wealth is important and it does reveal how bad the problem of income inequality has become in this country. But it’s not the statistic I’ve seen the left most concerned about–usually they focus on the wealth gap between the 99 or 98% and the top 1 or 2%. That is what Obama has focused on in his speeches and his tax proposals. He has not called for increased taxes on the top 20%.
Also, I hope you can get to my question about why you are so concerned about class warfare toward the rich (who are doing better than ever), but don’t say a peep about class warfare toward the poor (who are doing worse than ever).
Romney will get the overall economy going again and GM will benefit along with most other companies.
Obama doesn’t know how to make an economy thrive. He is ideologically opposed to the policies that allow business to thrive. He is in bed with “them rich guys” at GM. Made a green energy deal. In three years now GM hasn’t come back strong. The bailout deal was for the unions. He made sure that bond holders were screwed out of any share in the restructuring when he gave the unions a share of the company and bailed out their healthcare and pensions. He also screwed major dealerships and related companies in this deal.
Big time corporatism going on there in a payback to the unions for his election. GM stock is down to around $19.2 a share; it needs to climb to $53.00 for the taxpayers to break even on their money. Anything less and we lose.
Romney will enact policies that will unleash businesses setting them free to create jobs and grow the economy. GM will do better under Romney….he** we will all do better under Romney!
Chris, true there was no direct quote that Obama targeted the 20%. That wouldn’t be very bright of him to do that. However, he did everything but, it was certainly implied by his speeches and his associates comments. All it takes is very a tiny leap, a baby step of logic, to see this… ?
Chris I’d like to know what you think would have to happen to create income equality. Once accomplished how would it look? What percentages would be acceptable? What policies do you endorse to keep these percentages static?
Jack there are hundreds of examples of Obama, his staff, and his supporters in the media “targeting the 20%” or the top 2%!!!!!
Lets take that leap and establish a pattern of communication designed to create hyper awareness about the wealthy. Constant hammering is meant to gin up resentment for the rich…those who have not paid their fair share. Obama implies the rich are not pulling their weight, not ponying up, not giving enough back, somehow skirting their responsibilitya greedy group of people who dont care about anyone but themselves:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallcomstaff/2012/08/02/of_course_omb_director_blames_sequestration_on_the_rich_not_paying_their_fair_share
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/obama-live-on-the-buffett-rule/1#.UBqweqBy_4U
It’s “just plain” wrong…(mild mannered savior scolds those bad wealthy people!)
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/09/obama-unveils-3-trillion-plus-debt-cut-plan/1#.UBqt8qBy_4U
Once again the mild mannered man implies the wealthy are wrong for not paying their “fair share” after all everyone “should” pay their fair share. Almost half of the country pays nothing in federal tax. Some who work get a credit payment to supplement their pay. What “fair share” do they pay?
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/07/obama-corporations-wealthy-must-pay-their-fair-share–64155.html
“Too?” Too? What fair share are they not paying that others ARE paying? (This is a strawman argument Chris…your favorite!)
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXe3DGNI_Ms
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1222806
The rich pay more than their fair share in federal tax. But taxes aren’t the only contribution they make. They also create jobs…a lot of jobs!!! They donate generously to charitable and nonprofit entities!!! Their advertising dollars helps makes television, newspapers, and radio possible!!!! They create the wealth that makes the pie grow so that others have the chance to grow wealth that makes the pie bigger…a thriving growing economy means more opportunity to grow personal welath for anyone who wants it.
But all of that is not enough and you know why? Because this non-recovery recovery of Obama’s is a bust. Obama is a failure. He has failed to get the economy going; he has failed to get people back to work…therefore revenues to government are way down too.
He is STUPID or he is out to ruin the country…one or the other, take your pick.
Another reason looms large. Since Obama’s policies are such a failure he has nothing to run on…nothing to brag about to get people to vote for him. His strategy is to get them to vote for him as their “savior”. But he needs a villain…a boogie man…a monster…a strawman for his base (and, he hopes, the independents) to hate and resent. “The rich not paying their fair share” fill that bill and his opponent is “one of them”.
Pathetic, sick, dishonest and absolutely class warfare in the political battle for the presidency.
Wouldnt Obama wanting to increase the taxes on singles and couple earning $200k/$250k a year increase that percentage? He keeps saying he wants to make those top earners pay their fair share and set the above amount as the benchmark.
Doesnt seem like 1-2% comes even close, nor does the 20%. Are there percentages for wage earners that begin at $200k? Id like to see them, if they are.
Inciting anger and resentment toward people beginning at this salary doesnt seem wise unless those numbers have dropped so dramatically over the past couple of years because of unemployment.
Jack: “Chris, true there was no direct quote that Obama targeted the 20%. That wouldn’t be very bright of him to do that. However, he did everything but, it was certainly implied by his speeches and his associates comments. All it takes is very a tiny leap, a baby step of logic, to see this… ?”
No, Jack, I think it requires a very big leap to go from 2% to 20%. You have to multiple the actual number by ten to get there. You say he “implied” an attack on the top 20%, but what do you mean by that? How much do the top 20% make, anyway? Have his “associates” advocated raising taxes on the top 20%?
You’re not supporting your argument very well at all and I think you know that.
Tina: “Chris I’d like to know what you think would have to happen to create income equality. Once accomplished how would it look? What percentages would be acceptable? What policies do you endorse to keep these percentages static?”
Tina, I have linked to studies before which show that a majority of Americans (right and left, rich and poor) desire our country to have income inequality at a rate similar to Sweden’s. Here is one poll:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf
This poll shows that while Americans vastly underestimate current levels of income inequality (which are at records not seen since the run-up to the Great Depression), their desired level is much lower than it really is in the U.S. I agree with the majority of Americans and I think levels similar to Sweden’s would be fair and achievable.
I would support policies that help the middle class and the average worker. Obama has signed into law many tax breaks for middle class workers and small businesses. He has also made health care easier to obtain and more affordable. Yesterday, you yourself cited the CBO’s findings that thirty million more people will gain coverage due to the PPACA. The PPACA also proposes a solution to help keep Medicare sustainable (although you have hypocritically called this solution a “death panel,” despite your previous support of cutting Medicare and your current support of the Ryan plan which would lower the eligibility age and decrease services.) Obama’s changes to the student loan system has made college more affordable as well.
But he hasn’t done enough. The stimulus helped, but it ended too soon. I would also support an increase in the minimum wage, which when adjusted for inflation, is the lowest its been since the 60s. You argue that this would raise unemployment, but that doesn’t explain how unemployment has been growing even as wages have been falling. The problem is that work hasn’t been incentivized; it’s simply not paying off to work a minimum wage job anymore. This leads to more people on government assistance, even if they do work. A common saying among Wal-Mart employees is that we all carry three cards to the store: our nametag card, our discount card, and our welfare card. A higher minimum wage means more money for the average worker, which means everyone will be able to spend more, which means more customers for corporations.
I support policies that directly help the middle class–none of this indirect magical thinking that insists we have to make life for the wealthiest Americans as easy as humanly possible, and then the rewards will trickle down on the rest of us. We don’t have time for that and it hasn’t worked anyway.
The Washington Examiner piece you link to is extremely unconvincing because it examines the percentage of revenue the wealthy as a group contribute to the government, but not the actual tax rate of wealthy individuals. So it is not a very good metric of whether the rich are paying their fair share. Even if rich individuals payed less of a percentage in taxes than lower-income individuals (and in some cases this does happen, due to all the crazy tax loopholes the rich can take advantage of), the total revenue contributed by the wealthy as a group would STILL be larger than the total revenue contributed by the lower-income as a group, because they make so much more money. So that article really tells us little of value when it comes to whether or not we should raise taxes on the wealthy.
The article also claims that the Buffet Rule wouldn’t raise revenue, which I’ve never heard before; most conservatives I’ve read have said it will raise revenue, just not enough to justify the law. Liberals argue that it will raise more than conservatives think it will. But I’ve never seen anyone claim that it “won’t raise revenue.”
So another policy I would favor is raising tax rates on the rich back to the Clinton levels. I would also favor regulations that make it difficult to outsource and hide money in offshore accounts. This would mean more American jobs and more money spent here in the U.S. economy.
“But all of that is not enough and you know why? Because this non-recovery recovery of Obama’s is a bust. Obama is a failure.”
Tina, the reason this recovery has been so slow is that there’s never been a recession this bad. The closest we can compare it to is the Great Depression, which took over a decade to fully recover from. This decade saw an unprecedented amount of spending on both infrastructure and social programs and massive war spending. Americans were put to work during this period, and no one can argue with a straight face that this wasn’t due to government involvement! The government took an unprecedentedly active role during this period and everyone was better off for it.
Peggy: “Doesnt seem like 1-2% comes even close, nor does the 20%. Are there percentages for wage earners that begin at $200k? Id like to see them, if they are.”
Peggy, I posted a link showing the percentage that makes $250k/yr in my first comment on this thread.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/apr/10/barack-obama/how-many-americans-make-less-250000-year/
The percentage of single people making $200k/yr is the same as couples making over $250k/yr: 2%.
Interestingly enough, the Tax Policy Center revealed an analysis of Mitt Romney’s tax proposals yesterday, and has concluded that “any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower income taxpayers.”
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf
What do you all think about this? Is increasing the tax burden on middle- and lower-income taxpayers to pay for tax cuts on the rich a form of “class warfare?” Heck, is it good policy, in a period where the rich are doing better than ever, while the middle and lower classes are doing worse and worse?
Chris: “Obama has signed into law many tax breaks for middle class workers and small businesses. He has also made health care easier to obtain and more affordable.”
And neither of these has really helped the poor or middle class because Obama’s policies have created recurrent high unemployment, a stagnant economy, inflation (higher prices on essentials like food and energy), and less revenue flowing to federal, state, and local s.
Without a thriving economy we all suffer.
I have more arguments but an appointment takes me away…back later.
Thanks Chris for the link.
The info. is based on 2009 tax returns and really doesn’t reflect todays or even last years incomes.
“Using statistics from the IRS website, we found that 137,988,219 tax returns out of 140,494,127 — or 98.2 percent — reported adjusted gross income of less than $250,000 a year in 2009, the most recent data available.”
With the high unemployement and under-employment figures between 15-20% we need updated figures before we can say what the percentage of top income earners is.
I wonder if the new figures are available and if not when?
Tina: “And neither of these has really helped the poor or middle class because Obama’s policies have created recurrent high unemployment, a stagnant economy, inflation (higher prices on essentials like food and energy), and less revenue flowing to federal, state, and local s.”
Tina, Obama did not “create” any of these problems; they were all growing long before Obama took office. I think you know that already, but you say otherwise because you think doing so helps Romney’s electoral chances. It’s really sad to see a Christian woman engage in such a pattern of dishonesty, especially at your age. I can’t imagine my grandmother or mother acting this way, they taught me to value the truth over all else and that telling transparent lies gets you nowhere.
Before we can go forward on the tax discussion we should clarify. The President talks about giving tax “cuts” or tax “breaks” to rich people. In truth he is talking about raising their tax rates for next year. Speaking about it as he does makes it seem like the rich would be taking something from government, or somehow cheating the system, and that is not true.
The current rates for all Americans are set to expire. If nothing is done all tax rates will go up on January first. Many economists, republicans, and democrats think it is folly to raise anyone’s taxes in this economy. Speaker Boehner has a list that includes Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, and Joe Lieberman:
http://www.speaker.gov/general/chorus-democratic-defectors-say-stopping-small-business-tax-hike-necessary-jobs
“The problem is that work hasn’t been incentivized; it’s simply not paying off to work a minimum wage job anymore.”
Most of the jobs created in Obama’s poor economy are minimum wage jobs…so much for government using money to create jobs. (see link below on job corp)
Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs and not meant to sustain a family (some do use min. wage jobs to supplement family income).
You apparently have a minimum wage job at Wall-Mart? You will not stay at that job; you will move on. Retirees work at Wall-Mart to supplement their SS and pension income. They will not stay but will eventually move on. Teenagers work at Wendy’s part time…they get a little job experience, a little spending money, and that helps the fast food owner to keep his doors open. As these people move on others take their places but they are all on their way to somewhere else. NOBODY should be told that these are jobs that are adequate to sustain a family.
Jobs that pay more than minimum wage require some form of training. That requires time, effort, and sacrifice.
You still haven’t answered the question. How does a country reach income equality? How far do you take the concept?
If $10.00 is good for minimum wage why not %50.00? Are you going to limit what people can make and keep in order to ensure income equality? Are you going to control how they spend, save, and invest? Do you just go all out and let government run everything giving everyone the same compensation? Why not just have government provide free food, free housing, free car (or bicycle) and free healthcare? Why not hand out little black cotton uniforms!
The very words “income inequality” grate at the concepts we in America have always held sacrosanct…free will, free enterprise, and property rights. Freedom to earn and acquire as much as we can or want…and to keep it as our own property. These are what have made America the land of opportunity and dreams.
The incentive to do better does not come from government assistance…it comes from inside the individual when he knows he is free to build a life of his own dreams and from his own efforts.
Maybe we should start a government policy to create education equality. You’ve worked hard in school and will soon get your degree. But some people don’t have a degree and they can’t get the job you’ll be able to get. That’s not fair so how about if we just give them a cost of education increases. Instead of money we just hand out diplomas…what do you say Chris? Do you think that would work out well? Would it make the hard work you did to acquire the skills to earn more worth it in the future?
Wages are determined by what a person is willing to pay and what a person is willing to accept as pay. Competition helps to keep people honest.
You don’t seem to get that you can’t have that collectivist dream of income equality and also keep your freedom. And please don’t pretend that total government control isn’t the logical end to raising the minimum wage and redistributing wealth. Of course it is.
And this: “…any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower income taxpayers”
This is gobbledygook. A “revenue neutral” change is one that brings exactly the same revenue to the government. The conclusion assumes everything will remain static, which it won’t…or pretends that a robust economy will bring higher incomes for the middle and lower classes which would result in them paying more “money” based on the same low rate to government (hence “increased tax burdens”). They are fooling you with gobbledygook. (Lies and inferences)
Here’s a great example of what happens to (tax) money when government gets involved:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/11443-gao-finds-rampant-waste-in-$18b-federal-job-training-program
Government doesn’t do anything but waste large amounts of cash and create a lot of busywork government jobs that, by the way, turn out to be excessive in terms of their compensation. The healthcare, pensions, bonuses and perks are much too generous and expensive at taxpayer expense.
Chris you understandably have a heart for people who are struggling. You don’t have any idea how to really help them. Taking from the rich to put into bigger and more government programs doesn’t work. Raising the minimum wage will only cause costs to go up for companies and those costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for the things the working poor must buy. A higher minimum wage is useless in terms of real buying power.
We need to teach people how to better their own circumstances and how to build their own wealth. As the report above points out private schools and local community colleges are doing the best job at training people and preparing them for the workforce. It should also be pointed out that companies train people as well.
Government is going through the motions and patting itself on the back in order to get more money to go through the motions again. It’s all a big waste and that is exactly why the American people are saying no to more expensive government.
Our readers might enjoy this very informative article:
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/27/president-obamas-right-jobs-problem-wrong-answer/
Also Romney promised today that his plan will create 12 million jobs:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/02/news/economy/romney-jobs/index.htm
Art Laffer:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132473777840938.html
“…the reason this recovery has been so slow is that there’s never been a recession this bad.”
That is just not true. It is more liberal progressive excuse making and gobbledygook. The reason it took a decade to “overcome” the recession (crash) of 1929 is because that “recovery” was based on the same economic principles that Obama has used. Government project provided temporary jobs but did nothing for the overall economy. The war put Americans back to work and after the war reconstruction and supplying Europe with food and clothing until they could rebuild kick started our economy. Freedom and individual entreprenurial effort and invention is what made the economy grow and thrive. It did that best when government kept taxes low and stayed out of the way.
The recession that Reagan inherited from Carter was as bad according to many economists. Inflation was through the roof, interest rates were very high, we sat for hours in gas lines as energy prices doubled and tripled. I was a young mother; I remember it well! Hamburger jumped from $.59 a pound to $1.39. My PG&E went from $30.00 a month to well over $100.00. Wages were not keeping up with inflation. Carter said we were suffering from n”malaise”. His policies made it that way.
I only have time to respond to one thing right now.
“That is just not true. It is more liberal progressive excuse making and gobbledygook. The reason it took a decade to “overcome” the recession (crash) of 1929 is because that “recovery” was based on the same economic principles that Obama has used. Government project provided temporary jobs but did nothing for the overall economy. The war put Americans back to work and after the war reconstruction and supplying Europe with food and clothing until they could rebuild kick started our economy. Freedom and individual entreprenurial effort and invention is what made the economy grow and thrive. It did that best when government kept taxes low and stayed out of the way.”
You say that what I wrote was “gobbledygook,” but the above paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. First you say that government projects “did nothing for the overall economy,” then you say that the war put Americans back to work.
Wasn’t the war a government project?
So was the reconstruction of Europe, if I recall.
Many of the jobs that grew in this time period were government jobs.
And your idea that government “kept taxes low” during this period is 180 degrees removed from reality. As you know (because I’ve told you before), tax rates during WWII were unprecedentedly high, especially on the most wealthy. For a while, the top tax rate was over 90%.
So how can you possible claim that low tax rates and low government interference during WWII is what helped us get out of the Depression? That makes no sense, and is completely ahistorical.
If your central economic theory requires you to constantly misrepresent history in such obvious ways, then it’s time to consider getting a new theory.
There are many, many other problems with your last comment, but I’ll have to get to them later.
“The reason it took a decade to “overcome” the recession (crash) of 1929 is because that “recovery” was based on the same economic principles that Obama has used.”
No, it took a decade because while the depth of the grief forced the Congress to enact most of Roosevelt’s agenda, they eternally skimped on the funding … until we commenced the buildup to WWII, and REALLY started spending money we didn’t have.
And then, after the war, when we were economically stressed with assimilating soldier … we defaulted on the war bonds.
You can deny it til hell freezes … it’s still the truth.
So what this works out to, in the current situation, is that if the monied cannot be got to pony up, and with European soverign defaults looming, we’re looking at 20 years of stagnation and misery, misery and stagnation.
Whoopee.
Chris”…above paragraph makes no sense whatsoever…then you say that the war put Americans back to work.”
Building weapons for war and feeding and clothing the troops. Meanwhile the people did without, suffered extreme shortages of food and fuel. Unless you suggest ongoing war as a solution this argument for government control of business makes no sense at all.
“So was the reconstruction of Europe, if I recall.”
In the form of loans and grants that became very controversial from both sides of the political spectrum. Progressives argue that it set us up as imperialists and the conservatives argue that it was unnecessary and established the precedent for foreign aid. Either way, to suggest that building infrastructure (for America or for another country) is desirable as a way to increase overall economic growth makes no sense at all. At home (the only reasonable suggestion) has been tried to little effect. The few people hired are fired when the project ends…the small difference it made is swallowed up by the continuing sluggishness of a non-recovering economy…back to square one and 8.3% (15%) unemployment.
“And your idea that government “kept taxes low” during this period is 180 degrees removed from reality. ”
I didn’t say that. I said the reconstruction effort helped to “kick start” our economy but our economy didn’t really grow until much later when Kennedy cut taxes.
You and your party are in double denial. They deny that tax cuts worked every time they were tried by Republicans and Democrats. They deny that the stimulus and spending that Obama has embraced has worked as badly as it did in the 1929 depression.
You might want to give some thought to how willing your party leaders are to let our country go down the drain for their own personal power!
You might want to consider too that in the early 1960’s, before Johnson, we didn’t have most of the entitlement programs we have today. SS taxes were at 3% of only the first $4800. of income.
I didn’t misrepresent history.
Your ability to accurately portray history happening right in front of your eyes is a bit troubling to me.
Obama’s economic record is one of abject failure:
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/01/20/handy-dandy-table-on-obamas-economic-record-suitable-for-printing-and-posting/
Obama agreed that if he hadn’t brought unemployment down he shouldn’t be reelected. He hasn’t and he shouldn’t. the reason he hasn’t is because he doesn’t understand what makes an economy thrive any more than you do.
Libby: “No, it took a decade because while the depth of the grief forced the Congress to enact most of Roosevelt’s agenda, they eternally skimped on the funding…”
What funding? Nobody was producing. It was a depression.
Ohhhhhh, I know. You believe in the fairy dust theory that money derives from a tree in the backyard at the White House…there for the picking!
Geez Libs. Before government funding there has to be private sector production and growth, a lot of jobs, and taxes and regulation that don’t discourage more production.
“So what this works out to, in the current situation, is that if the monied cannot be got to pony up, and with European soverign defaults looming, we’re looking at 20 years of stagnation and misery, misery and stagnation.”
That may indeed be the very transformation that dear leader had in mind. We can cement the deal by giving him four more…a fools play. This one note song is beginning to grate.
The rich don’t have enough money, even if you took all of it, to pay the interest on our debt for one month.
Raise tax rates on the rich and the revenue will be spent. The conditions to create a thriving economy will remains static or worsen and our problems will continue to grow worse.
We can put our faith in the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people in the private sector. We can invite them to spend and invest time, effort, and money to grow the economy, put Americans back to work, and increase the tax base by keeping all taxes low, getting rid of looming regulations and taxes in Obamacare, and simplifying the tax code.
“What funding?”
Funding equals borrowing. You know this. Don’t be disingenuous.
The Congress wouldn’t do the borrowing required until they had a war to fund. What is it with the boys … and war? They’ll go sailing headlong into debt for WWII or that godawful Iraq Adventure … but roads, schools, peace … not a dime. What is it with the boys?
LOL the way kids today are turning out you sure would think not a dime is going into the education. Unfortunately that is not the case, Libby, you are a Fing idiot. I am guessing Q’s will was read and he put his tinfoil hat up for grabs? Until this it looked like Chris had it squarely on his head but you seem to have snagged it.
You’re funny Libs. Defense of the nation is the one thing the federal government is supposed to do…mandated to do.
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_brief.php
We spend as much on education as we spend on defense. Add to that healthcare food stamps, welfare and other social services and the price tag for the things you claim we don’t spend for rivals what we spent for WWII defense on a yearly basis!
It is a lie that we spend too much on defense and not enough on other things.
That “boy” in the White House has gone into DEEP debt, including funding a war, without producing anything lasting. Teachers, firefighters, police, and car union workers were “rescued” (temporarily)…green energy jobs were created (in China)…green energy companies were funded (and died)…
…meanwhile employment prospects are abysmal!
Borrowing, as a solution, still requires a source for repayment…where do you suppose we will get it if we don’t support and encourage those who produce wealth, create jobs, and make the economy GROW?
War is lousy but what are we gonna do when there are crazy people driven to kill us or dominate into submission? I shudder to think of war run by women. Cat fights are usually vicious, chaotic, and go unresolved.
Tina: “Building weapons for war and feeding and clothing the troops.”
Yes. These were jobs that existed because of the government. The private sector and the government cooperated during this time period and it made our country stronger.
“Meanwhile the people did without, suffered extreme shortages of food and fuel.”
Yes, this puts things into perspective, considering that in today’s time of crisis, you’re complaining about raising the top tax rates by a few percentage points!
Your parents’ generation seemed to understand that when the country is suffering, sacrifice is necessary, especially from those who have much to give. Yet today, whenever the most well-off are asked to sacrifice a fraction of what the wealthy during WWII did, you throw a conniption fit and start ranting about communism.
“Unless you suggest ongoing war as a solution this argument for government control of business makes no sense at all.”
We don’t need a war to justify government spending, Tina. And I reject your assessment of the argument as being “for government control of business.” I am for sensible regulations that hold corporations accountable and promote job creation here in the U.S., not overseas. I am also for a tax code that requires corporations to actually pay what they owe in taxes, without giving them a million loopholes and tax breaks.
“In the form of loans and grants that became very controversial from both sides of the political spectrum. Progressives argue that it set us up as imperialists and the conservatives argue that it was unnecessary and established the precedent for foreign aid. Either way, to suggest that building infrastructure (for America or for another country) is desirable as a way to increase overall economic growth makes no sense at all.”
Then why did you just suggest that very thing? You wrote:
“The war put Americans back to work and after the war reconstruction and supplying Europe with food and clothing until they could rebuild kick started our economy.”
You are completely contradicting yourself.
“I didn’t say that. I said the reconstruction effort helped to “kick start” our economy but our economy didn’t really grow until much later when Kennedy cut taxes.”
We are talking about how to kick start our economy right now. Therefore, it is only sensible to look at how the economy was kick started in the past. Changing the subject to what happened decades after the Depression ended doesn’t really tell us much.
But I can see why you’d want to change the subject. You have no explanation for how our economy could have been kick started into recovery during a time of record government spending and taxation. The idea that this could happen is heresy to your party. But that doesn’t change the fact that it happened.
Today you argue that higher taxes on the rich and greater government regulation and spending will send us deeper into recession and cripple our economy. But clearly, that’s not what happened in the past. Clearly, we can have higher taxes on the rich, as well as generous government investments and sensible regulations, and still have a recovery. We know this because that’s exactly what happened in the thirties, forties, and fifties. Your theory can’t explain that, which means it is not a good theory.
“They deny that the stimulus and spending that Obama has embraced has worked as badly as it did in the 1929 depression.”
You are the one in denial if you still cling to the musty old canard that the New Deal didn’t work.
The following article has many interesting facts about government involvement in the economy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/government-employment-recovery-_n_1737915.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
One relevant statistic:
“Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economics professors at the University of Michigan, noted in a recent Bloomberg View column that 92 percent of leading economists agree that the stimulus helped reduce the unemployment rate, according to a February poll conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. In July, Wolfers called Congress’ refusal to consider another stimulus “an enormous dereliction of duty.””
Are 92% of economists also in denial, Tina?
Chris: “this puts things into perspective, considering that in today’s time of crisis, you’re complaining about raising the top tax rates by a few percentage points!”
To you it is a few percentage points. to those out of work it’s another blow to the possibility of a lasting job.
And you are attempting to compare recovery from recession to recovery from a devastating depression and world war. THAT’S NUTS!
It is particularly nutty when the solution to the financial crisis today is to get government out of the way and let those people who have it put their money to work..in the private sector! It’s part of what must be done to remove the uncertainty that has business handcuffed.
President Obama August 2009: “You don’t raise taxes in a recession…the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in a the middle of a recession because that would just suck…take more demand out of the economy and put more businesses in the hole”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE
NEWS FLASH: WE ARE STILL IN A NON-RECOVERY SITUATION!!!!!
“Your parents’ generation seemed to understand that when the country is suffering, sacrifice is necessary…”
Excuse me Chris we have sacrificed. We have incurred big losses because of the moronic (Democrat) lending regulation that caused the housing meltdown and financial crisis. We have endured three years of high unemployment that was totally unnecessary. We have been saddled with unprecedented regulatory burdens while we watched our debt burden rise like a rocket. We have endured rising food prices and tanking property values.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/money-power-wall-street/how-much-did-the-financial-crisis-cost/
http://www.droolingfordollars.com/loser-billionaires-in-global-crisis/
“especially from those who have much to give. Yet today, whenever the most well-off are asked to sacrifice a fraction of what the wealthy during WWII did, you throw a conniption fit and start ranting about communism.”
“From each according to their means…”
You bet I throw a conniption fit.
you (government) aren’t asking. Secondly, the rich are already paying a lions share of all taxes, and last and best of all…THEIR MONEY IS BEING SPENT STUPIDLY AND WASTEFULLY.
Your own perspective is way off. We have the means to reverse this crisis within the private sector and this President and his minions are blunting it while you cheer and ask for more.
“I am for sensible regulations that hold corporations accountable and promote job creation here in the U.S., not overseas.”
Then Obama is not your man!
“I am also for a tax code that requires corporations to actually pay what they owe in taxes, without giving them a million loopholes and tax breaks.”
Corporations write the checks for the taxes they owe according to the laws on the books. It is an expense to the business. CONSUMERS carry that tax burden in the form of higher prices for goods. This is important, Chris.
I’m all for a simplified tax code and would gladly give up loop holes in exchange for low rates…most business people would welcome less paperwork and compliance costs!
Your attitude and hostility toward business is exceeded only by your ignorance. Can you name the loop holes and tax breaks that bother you or are you just mouthing liberal talking points? Do you have any idea what it costs business to play the silly tax law loop holetax break game?
Speaking of tax breaks…the biggest tax break of all is the one where a non-taxpaying worker gets a check from the government after filing. That’s a fairly sizable tax break. Or how about the tax break that the millions who don’t work, don’t pay, and get food stamps, education grants, welfare, healthcare. those are some really big tax breaks. Oh you don’t think of them as breaks? Why the hell not? They contribute almost nothing and yet benefit from the work of others in a way that allows them NOT TO WORK.
WHAT’S SICK IS THEY HAVE ADOPTED AN ATTITUDE OF RESENTMENT AND COVETOUSNESS TO THOSE WHO PAY THE LIONS SHARE OF TAXES.
“Then why did you just suggest that very thing? You wrote: ‘The war put Americans back to work and after the war reconstruction and supplying Europe with food and clothing until they could rebuild kick started our economy.'”
I didn’t suggest it. We are not recovering from a world war that followed a deep depression. We are recovering (NOT) from a recession. It is a recession not unlike the one in the eighties that Reagan pulled us out of by unleashing the power of the American people.
“We are talking about how to kick start our economy right now. Therefore, it is only sensible to look at how the economy was kick started in the past.”
I repeat. There is no necessity to rebuild following the destruction and devastation of war. After the war we had to completely reverse course…stop building planes, tanks, guns, and ships and start building whatever the entrepreneurial American thought he could make money building…things Americans wanted and needed.
We already have infrastructure. We already have businesses waiting to be set free. We already have a formula that we know works to get the economy growing again (Kennedy, Reagan, GWB). Obama has ignored what has historically worked in favor of his (expensive) agenda. His agenda has not only racked up a lot of debt but it has placed constraints on an economy left reeling.
“You have no explanation for how our economy could have been kick started into recovery during a time of record government spending and taxation.”
Chris you are the one without an explanation. Government spending is what you favor but you don’t seem to consider that government spending requires that we either go deeply into debt or take money from the very people that generate wealth. We can print money (quantitative easing) but that causes your dollars to be worth less.
Why are you married to these ideas? Why, when there is another way to make the economy work and generate plenty of revenue for government?
I think you should consider what is contained in the following article very carefully, Chris. We are talking about your future:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
And what about revenues to government under Reagan’s business friendly policies?
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~mchugh/taxes/The%20Reagan%20Tax%20Cuts%20Lessons%20for%20Tax%20Reform.htm
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/tax-cuts-revenue-what-we-learned-1980s
See the rising revenue figures that followed the Bush tax cuts here:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm
Democrats are dumb. They cut off their noses to spite their faces. Appropriate quote:
“Clearly, we can have higher taxes on the rich, as well as generous government investments and sensible regulations, and still have a recovery. We know this because that’s exactly what happened in the thirties, forties, and fifties.”
THE HUMAN FACTOR. After enduring a deep depression (made deep by policies used by Obama in this recession) and a world war America was ready to start living normally again. The people were anxious to work and acquire wealth and belongings for themselves. This self-interest generated investment and invention in the private sector, activity that made America the envy of the world. Your ignorant desire to somehow make all of this investment and hard work a result of divine government edict and expenditure is laughable and sad.
Chris you don’t even know the heritage and history of your own country. You have been schooled in the principles and lies of Marxism and you don’t even know it. I can;t tell you how sad it is that you have been denied the experience of the American entrepreneurial spirit. This spirit builds and generates wealth that makes some of us very rich it’s true. BUT it also lifts people out of poverty, creates an abundance of opportunity for everyone, allows for charity work at home and all around the world, funds educational opportunity, builds museums, libraries, colleges, hospitals, and concert halls. And the party you favor seeks to rob and blunt this spirit for the failed Marxist model of spreading/sharing wealth.
“Your theory can’t explain that, which means it is not a good theory.”
My “theory” has explained it you just refuse to entertain the truth regarding history and the human element that is always affected by government action. You refuse to discern the difference between a war and a recession in terms of crisis and sacrifice and the solutions required to address each problem.
You also refuse to consider the “theory” that has been proven to work under both Democrat and Republican administrations.
“… noted in a recent Bloomberg View column that 92 percent of leading economists agree that the stimulus helped reduce the unemployment rate.”
Oh for heavens sake! 92% of leading economists? Who decides who the leading economist are. What did they do conduct a poll at a luncheon attended only by progressive economists? This is a meaningless statement.
Try this:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/02/17/the-five-biggest-failures-from-president-obamas-stimulus-law
Those so-called economist of yours are full of crap.
Democrats have been trying to convince people that Republican policies are harmful to the poor when clearly just the opposite is true. They have been trying to convince people that the wealthy are motivated by greed rather than the urge to produce and participate.
Republican policies have lifted people out of poverty, reduced crime, and created greater opportunity for more Americans while also providing revenues to support the safety net, vital services, and infrastructure.
An effort to better educate our children about the American spirit and the means to acquire wealth for themselves would solve a lot of America’s problems.
What say you now, Chris?
With our steel mills closed and closing down, and moved to China how will be build the ships, planes, etc. we’ll need to defend oursleves if we are attacked again. Steel is being imported from China to build everything from bridges, train tracks and buildings.
With having to borrow 40% of our budget from China how will we pay to defend ourselves?
China has moved to position themselves as our replacement in the world and are just steps away from succeeding. They are already hacking into our national and tachnical buisness’ computers and we’re (Obama and Clinton) letting them because of our debt to them.
Tina: “Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs and not meant to sustain a family (some do use min. wage jobs to supplement family income).
You apparently have a minimum wage job at Wall-Mart? You will not stay at that job; you will move on. Retirees work at Wall-Mart to supplement their SS and pension income. They will not stay but will eventually move on. Teenagers work at Wendy’s part time…they get a little job experience, a little spending money, and that helps the fast food owner to keep his doors open. As these people move on others take their places but they are all on their way to somewhere else. NOBODY should be told that these are jobs that are adequate to sustain a family.
Jobs that pay more than minimum wage require some form of training. That requires time, effort, and sacrifice.”
Tina, you are once again being naive. This economy means that minimum wage jobs are sometimes all that’s available, even for overqualified people. Look at how hard it is these days even for college graduates to get jobs. I know many people at Wal-Mart who have been there for years–this is their career, and they still don’t get payed that much. Many of them don’t have the time or money to get a college degree. The majority of cashiers my age have had to choose between work and school, and work won. They are trying to save up so that they can eventually go to college, but it is hard. Postponing their education means that it will take longer for them to get a better job, but this is what they have to do right now to survive. And statistically speaking, some of them will never be able to go back to school. I have trouble saving anything–nearly all my money goes to help with the household bills, and I have a lot of advantages such as financial aid for college and a landlord who charges the most generous rent in the state. Most of my young co-workers don’t have those advantages–they are in the bubble where they don’t make enough to go to college, but their families make “too much” to be considered for financial aid. It’s a vicious cycle.
Not to mention that keeping the minimum wage down means all middle-class workers end up being payed less. If minimum wage had kept up with inflation, everyone would be making more today. A rising tide lifts all boats, including Mitt Romney’s yacht.
“You still haven’t answered the question. How does a country reach income equality? How far do you take the concept?”
I did answer these questions. I’ve cited polls showing the preferred level of income inequality among the majority of Americans, and said I agree with them.
Maybe I’m understanding your question wrong? Are you talking about “equality of outcomes” again? If so, you are setting up a strawman.
“If $10.00 is good for minimum wage why not %50.00?”
Do you consider the above statement a serious, rational argument? I don’t.
“Why not just have government provide free food, free housing, free car (or bicycle) and free healthcare? Why not hand out little black cotton uniforms!”
This is just stupid.
“Maybe we should start a government policy to create education equality. You’ve worked hard in school and will soon get your degree. But some people don’t have a degree and they can’t get the job you’ll be able to get. That’s not fair so how about if we just give them a cost of education increases. Instead of money we just hand out diplomas…what do you say Chris?”
As is this.
“The very words “income inequality” grate at the concepts we in America have always held sacrosanct…free will, free enterprise, and property rights. Freedom to earn and acquire as much as we can or want…and to keep it as our own property. These are what have made America the land of opportunity and dreams….You don’t seem to get that you can’t have that collectivist dream of income equality and also keep your freedom.”
Tina, I can’t believe you are pooh-poohing the very notion of income inequality–essentially saying that the issue should not even be *discussed* in America because it is politically incorrect.
You really don’t think it’s problematic that the gap between the rich and the poor is bigger than it’s ever been, and getting larger? Under your theory of trickle-down economics, this should be *literally impossible.* If the rich are getting richer, so should the poor, according to you. You have no explanation for why this hasn’t happened; why the wealth at the top is NOT trickling down.
Do you think it’s a coincidence that income inequality is at the highest its been since the eve of the Great Depression?
A growing number of economists are arguing that income inequality is not only extremely relevant to the problems Americans face today, but perhaps the main driver of our current economic crisis. Here are some good articles about the subject:
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/economist-joseph-stiglitz-income-inequality-us
(In the above article, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says:
“The United States has become the most unequal country among the advanced industrial countries. Some people have said, ‘we don’t care of equality of outcome, what we really care about is equality of opportunity.’ America’s the land of opportunity. We have less opportunity than not only the countries of all of Europe, but any of the advanced industrial countries for which there’s data. And what that means is very simple: The life chances of an individual are more dependent on the income and education of his parent than in other countries. And an implication of that is people born in the bottom, who unfortunately chose the parents who were poor or not well-educated, will be more likely not to be able to live up to his potential.”)
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/06/08/inequality-has-increased-in-income-and-consumption-economists-argue/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-economists-have-misunderstood-inequality/2012/05/03/gIQAOZf5yT_blog.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/23/451166/acemoglu-income-inequality-political-powe/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
More later.
Chris: “Tina, you are once again being naive. This economy means that minimum wage jobs are sometimes all that’s available, even for overqualified people. Look at how hard it is these days even for college graduates to get jobs.”
The remedy isn’t a higher minimum wage which would cause loss of minimum wage jobs especially in this lousy non-recovery recovery. The solution is a vibrant growing economy with many different opportunities for employment! Businesses that don’t know what their expenses will be next year when higher taxes and new regulations kick in are not going to be able to keep employees at higher wages and more than they can now create new positions of any kind.
“I know many people at Wal-Mart who have been there for years–this is their career, and they still don’t get payed that much. Many of them don’t have the time or money to get a college degree.”
They could get training in electronics or the medical field within a couple of years. Others have done it. If one person can others can. People are prevented from improving their lot by their own lack of knowledge about what is possible or self-imposed barriers (don’t want to move, don’t want to go to school at night, don’t think they can do it, fear the unknown).
“It’s a vicious cycle.”
The vicious cycle is made worse by spread the wealth policies that blunt opportunity and economic growth and offer a few crumbs so the poor can get by. It’s not a good trade off. Life is hard but ultimately, even in a country with generous welfare and aid, it is up to the individual to pull himself up…nobody can make him do it.
“Not to mention that keeping the minimum wage down means all middle-class workers end up being payed less. If minimum wage had kept up with inflation, everyone would be making more today. A rising tide lifts all boats…”
Pay isn’t just some arbitrary figure that’s pulled out of a hat, Chris. People get paid according to what an employer can afford and merit of the employed.
A manufacturer might be able to offer his workers a higher wage without incurring too much damage to his bottom line but for many entry level positions a higher min wage will mean he must cut hours or eliminate jobs. The employer has to come up with the extra in the employees paycheck PLUS taxes, insurances, and other expenses associated with his employment week after week. If it eats up to much bottom line he has to cut something (usually jobs or hours) or raise prices.
“Do you consider the above statement a serious, rational argument? I don’t.”
I consider it a good question to ask of someone that hasn’t given much thought to the idea. All you care about or think about is helping someone. I can’t blame you for feeling for people that don’t earn much money but you are too bright to arbitrarily embrace the idea that handing out a little more money will help the poor in any meaningful way…that fifty cents or a dollar more is going to have a big impact on their lives. It won’t! So how much would? And can all businesses survive if we use the “living wage” idea as a great equalizer?
Raising the minimum wage hurts a lot of restaurants and other small businesses. It hurts the employment situation for teens and people just starting out.
People have to learn that if they want a better life they have to reach for it. They have to work hard in school and get training that will take them where they want to go. It isn’t the same for everyone but it is up to everyone. Businesses have a budget…they can pay what their bottom line allows. Take the job or find another.
“This is just stupid…As is this”
No Chris, its ABSURD! It’s absurd on purpose because you need to think about the logical end to your own proposals. You need to consider that personal responsibility…personal effort…personal investment…personal urge play no part in your thinking. The first thing you think about is what government or employers must do to make life better. Why not what the person must do to help himself? Why do you always want to fix things by taking from some to give to others. Why do you never think of earning and achieving to better ones circumstance? YOU are the perfect example. One day you will reap the reward of your hard work in school. You will have earned that reward. My example of education equality was meant to make you realize your work means something in terms of future earning potential. Should others that have not put forward the effort receive the same thing as you even without making that investment?
Attempts to artificially compensate in order to equalize income will diminish and nullify hard work. Human beings in such an atmosphere tend to strive less…produce less…imagine less.
“I can’t believe you are pooh-poohing the very notion of income inequality–essentially saying that the issue should not even be *discussed* in America because it is politically incorrect.”
I’m discussing it with you now. I said it grates on the notions of freedom, free will, and property rights.
Do property rights and freedom matter to you? Does free will have any meaning for you? Do you value and appreciate the fact that we can arrange our lives differently and that in freedom we can be the masters of our own fate…even if born poor?
My mother was poor and so was my dad. They worked hard and lift themselves into the middle class. I’m certain you will do the same. That effort and what it will bring you belongs to you and I don’t think we should support ideas that would take from you to give to someone who hasn’t or won’t put forth the same effort. That is a Marxist idea…it is not an American idea.
“You really don’t think it’s problematic that the gap between the rich and the poor is bigger than it’s ever been, and getting larger?”
It’s a problem for anyone who wants more money and doesn’t have it. It’s a problem with a solution that only an individual can adequately address for himself. He needs to asses his circumstances. He needs to inform and educate himself about what he wants and how to get there. He needs to educate himself about making and saving money. There are three things that poor people can do to dramatically improve their chances of being in the middle class: finish high school, work full time and marry before having children. The chances of being poor drop from 15 percent to 2 percent.
“Under your theory of trickle-down economics, this should be *literally impossible.* If the rich are getting richer, so should the poor, according to you.”
First of all that is not a description of what was called trickle down economics, a name designed (straight out of the Alinsky playbook) to discredit the Ronald Reagan and the economic boom he generated by creating a business friendly atmosphere and igniting the spirit of the people to follow their dreams.
Secondly until, this sustained non-recovery the middle class was not losing ground according to new analysis reported here:
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/september/middle-class/
I hope you will read through the entire article and notice the chart. It may offer some encouragement and explanation about how figures are manipulated for political reasons.
“You have no explanation for why this hasn’t happened; why the wealth at the top is NOT trickling down.”
Take that image of money showering down to the poor from the wealthy out of your head…that is redistribution not capitalism.
Reagan suggested that reasonable taxation causes people to become more industrious because they see an opportunity to earn and to keep more of what they earn. Reagan was also inspirational. When he spoke about freedom and the American dream people began to believe in themselves again (Remember he followed the Carter years of malaise and inherited a bad recession). Lowering tax rates and easing interest rate constraints changed behaviors. People began to take chances to a spectacular result:
http://www.reaganfoundation.org/economic-policy.aspx
Think of it as money flowing and opportunity blooming. The individual still must make an effort but his chances are so much better in a dynamic economy where aAbundance happens!
Stiglitz article…seems to assume a zero sum game. That there is only so much wealth and the 1% are hoarding it. This is nonsense. It is the nonsense that comes from the need to control outcomes through government interference and mandate. Same old progressive Marxist view.
My husband and I have a business, Chris. We had nothing when we started. We borrowed money to get us going and it took a long time to pay it back but we did it and we made a decent living for ourselves and several other people too. We also managed to set aside a nest egg for ourselves. Not one wealthy person had to give up his wealth for my husband and me to achieve that. Our work and my husbands imagination and skill made wealth happen from nothing.
The economy isn’t one pie from which we all eat. The economy is a space in which to make pies….and cookies and shortcake and popcorn and pot roast….taxes and regulation that are unreasonable make that space shrink and along with it the opportunity for most folk to make pie.
“My husband and I have a business, Chris. We had nothing when we started. We borrowed money to get us going and it took a long time to pay it back but we did it and we made a decent living for ourselves and several other people too. We also managed to set aside a nest egg for ourselves. Not one wealthy person had to give up his wealth for my husband and me to achieve that. Our work and my husbands imagination and skill made wealth happen from nothing [Well, not quite nothing. You’re neglecting to mention the “market maker”, aren’t you?].”
But all that aside, I don’t understand how this exposition of your very good luck explains why, if you pay a 15% income tax rate, Romney should NOT pay a 15% income tax rate.
You got some factual rebuttal to make? You can Fing, Fing, all you like … it just makes you look like, well, like one of the boys.