Archive for Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Obama proposal calls for the rich to pay higher taxes

September 20, 2011


Key features

• $1.5 trillion in new revenue, which would include about $800 billion over 10 years from repealing the Bush-era tax rates for couples making more than $250,000. It also would place limits on deductions for wealthy filers and end certain corporate loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies.

• $580 billion in cuts in mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion in Medicare and $72 billion in Medicaid and other health programs. Other mandatory benefit programs include farm subsidies and federal employee retirement benefits. The plan would reduce federal workers’ paychecks by 1.2 percent over three years, saving the government about $21 billion over 10 years.

• $430 billion in savings from lower interest payments on the national debt.

— Drawing clear battle lines for next year’s elections, a combative President Barack Obama on Monday demanded that the richest Americans pay higher taxes to help cut soaring U.S. deficits by more than $3 trillion. He promised to veto any effort by congressional Republicans to cut Medicare benefits for the elderly without raising taxes as well.

“This is not class warfare. It’s math,” Obama declared, anticipating Republican criticism, which was quick in coming.

“Class warfare isn’t leadership,” House Speaker John Boehner said, in Cincinnati.

Obama’s speech marked a new, confrontational stance toward Republicans after months of cooperation that many Democrats complained produced too many concessions. While the plan stands little chance of passing Congress, its populist pitch is one that the White House believes the public can support.

The president’s proposal, which he challenged Congress to approve, would predominantly hit upper-income taxpayers and would also target tax loopholes and subsidies used by many larger corporations. It would spare retirees from any changes in Social Security, and it would direct most of the cuts in Medicare spending to health care providers, not beneficiaries.

Benefit programs wouldn’t be unscathed. Obama’s plan would reduce spending for those, including Medicare and Medicaid, by $580 billion. But with Republicans calling for massive cuts in entitlement programs, Obama said he would veto any legislation that cut Medicare benefits without raising new revenue.

His plan also would count savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The deficit-reduction plan represents Obama’s longer-term follow-up to the $447 billion in tax cuts and new public works spending that he has proposed as a short-term measure to stimulate the economy. The new proposal also inserts the president’s voice into the legislative discussions of a joint congressional “supercommittee” charged with recommending deficit reductions of up to $1.5 trillion.

Defending his emphasis on new taxes rather than only spending reductions, Obama said: “We can’t just cut our way out of this hole.”

The Republican reaction was swift and bluntly dismissive.

“Veto threats, a massive tax hike, phantom savings and punting on entitlement reform is not a recipe for economic or job growth-or even meaningful deficit reduction,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. “The good news is that the Joint Committee is taking this issue far more seriously than the White House.”

The president announced his deficit reduction plan in a 20-minute speech from the Rose Garden at the White House. But even as he called for Congress to act and tackle the nation’s escalating debt, he gave greater urgency to his separate, short-term jobs proposal. “I’m ready to sign a bill,” he said. “I’ve got the pens all ready.”


Mike Gerhardt 5 years ago

I would still prefer a flat tax with no exemptions.

chootspa 5 years ago

I wouldn't, but I bet I'm better at math.

Richard Heckler 5 years ago

The group that is referenced as the rich have been receiving tax reductions of sorts for 31 years.

Middle class income earners have not received tax gifts from congress they just keep paying more and more. When The group that is referenced as the rich receive gifts the middle income earners unbeknownst to themselves pick up that tab. YES the middle income group have been the real patriots by keeping America going.

So what is being done is restoring what should not have been reduced in first place. The group that is referenced as the rich have been handed many ways to hide the value of their income such a tax shelters. They will likely never pay the original tax rates of 3 decades ago.

Some of the group that is referenced as the rich have been such vocal whiners they have become pathetic. Some of The group that is referenced as the rich have become economic terrorists and these are the ones that bring on home loan scams that which destroy USA economics. THINK the very large political families of the Reagan,Bush and Bush administrations who most always never go away they simply are hired and/or appointed again and again and again. Yes this is the RINO Christian Fundamentalist group of the Beltway where Sam Brownback learned his trade of facism.

Even if the democrats are successful in the name of America The group that is referenced as the rich will still be money ahead in a big way. Not all of The group that is referenced as the rich are whiners which in fact realize restoring rates is absolutely necessary which puts this group of rich among the USA patriots.

Fossick 5 years ago

"They will likely never pay the original tax rates of 3 decades ago. "

Of course not, because high rates are deceptively ineffective, which is why they were lowered by JFK in the first place. However, high rates or low, the rich are paying a higher percentage of the tax burden than they were three decades ago: 1980:
Top 1%: 19.05% of the total tax. Top 5%: 36.84% Top 10%: 49.28% Bottom 50%: 7.05%

2008: (last year available) Top 1%: 18.47% of the total tax. Top 5%: 38.02% Top 10%: 69.94% Bottom 50%: 2.70%

The top 10%, rather than paying half of the total income taxes they did 3 decades ago, now pay 70%. The bottom half of taxpayers pay 2%. Fair share indeed.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"The top 10%, rather than paying half of the total income taxes they did 3 decades ago, now pay 70%. The bottom half of taxpayers pay 2%. Fair share indeed."

And what share of income/wealth do the top 10% and bottom 50% now receive compared to 3 decades ago?

And what was the percentage of GDP collected in taxes 30 years ago as compared to now?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"And what was the percentage of GDP collected in taxes 30 years ago as compared to now?"

Income and capital gains taxes, that is.

Fossick 5 years ago

"but pay less per dollar for that wealth than they did in the 80's."

Isn't there someone here who likes to say "apples and oranges?" Wealth is not income - it's as silly to complain about proportions of wealth in reference to the income tax as it is to complain about proportions of income in relation to the property tax. One is not a measurement of the other.

America does not have a wealth tax. Maybe we should (though I'll bet Warren Buffet would scream like a scalded dog). But until we do, you're just squirting ink into the water.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"Wealth is not income" Yes, there is a difference between the two. But the wealthiest among us derive the majority of their income from their wealth (stocks, bonds, ownership of businesses/real estate, etc.)

And their is no better predictor of income than wealth. Trying to separate the two is pointless.

Fossick 5 years ago

Warren Buttett is worth tens of billions, $44 billion last I checked. How much income tax has he paid on that wealth? Almost none, because it's not income.

All that is income is the few paltry million in dividends that he takes home. It's chicken feed compared to the real wealth he owns. Tax his income at 200%, 300%, it won't matter a bit. Buffett's even going to avoid paying tax on it when he dies.

Complaining about the income tax does absolutely nothing about the wealth of "the wealthiest among us," for the simple reason that wealth is not income. Wealth is not even directly related to income. Sorry, Bozo, you don't know what you're talking about.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

I'm sure you have a point you're trying to make in there somewhere, but I really can't figure out what it is.

Fossick 5 years ago

"And their is no better predictor of income than wealth. Trying to separate the two is pointless."

There must then no better predictor of wealth than income, right? If the two are directly related, perhaps we could do some math together.

In 2006, Warren Buffet had about $44m in income and had assets of $44b - his income was .1% of his assets.

In 2010, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs took home $14.1m in salary. What are his assets?

rwwilly 5 years ago

Let me get this straight. You are suggesting a system of "taxation" that precludes any segment of society (or income category, if you prefer) from further increasing their percentage of the country's overall wealth at the expense of any other category? So the "rich" cannot get richer by increasing their overall share anymore than the poor. That is called income redistribution. The idea is the successful, therefore, actually work for the less successful. You are not the first to have this epiphany, however, Karl Marx thought of it first..

jayhawklawrence 5 years ago

It is absolutely correct that the wealth has become much more concentrated and this fact is never mentioned when people have this discussion.


People can't be that stupid...can they?

Not only that, but supply chains and resources are being controlled by far fewer individuals than ever before and in the globalization process, International companies are wielding more power than ever before in history. Wherever they can find greedy politicians or a system that is vulnerable to corruption (like ours) they do whatever they want.

We are in a time when the average American needs to wake up and stop believing political rhetoric and start investigating.

rwwilly 5 years ago

The rich are getting richer because they in all likelihood, 1. work harder 2. are smarter and better educated 3. are more highly motivated and lastly probably had a better family life as a child. I think Darwin had some thoughts on this subject.

Kat Christian 5 years ago

I agree the rich should pay the same % of taxes everyone else pays. They've been getting a free ride far too long now. You can't tell me the rich get perks everywhere they go, so paying more taxes isn't going to send them to the poor house. I'm for Obama.

naturalist 5 years ago

Mitch McConnell whines about MASSIVE TAXES and the people in the middle class, who aren't savvy about who would be taxed, react and say don't pass it. The Republicans are masters of manipulation of the middle class. Don't forget that you wouldn't want any health insurance forced upon you, even though you are required to have car insurance and I haven't heard people rebelling against that.

Maddy Griffin 5 years ago

It's only "Class Warfare" when we fight back.

Grundoon Luna 5 years ago

What you said!! The middle class have been getting kicked in the teeth for decades. the rich benenfit the most from society and should pay more. They wealthy and corporation exploit resources and infrastucture far more than the middle class so not only yeah they shoudl pay more, but hell yeah!!

jaywalker 5 years ago

"the rich benenfit the most from society and should pay more"

Absolutely! Why, everyone knows 'the rich' pay 25 times more tax than an average citizen, but police show up to their door 25 x faster, so do the fire department, ambulances, and the TV repair guy. When they walk down the street we're forced to clear their path and genuflect. I'm tired of it!

Scott Drummond 5 years ago

False argument. It is not claimed that the rich enjoy greater speed of response, but instead greater extent of protection.

Fossick 5 years ago

Yawn. Last month we were obsequious, this month we're combative. I just hope the internal Dem focus groups never suggest that Obama would be more effective wearing a clown suit with one of those flowers that squirts disappearing ink.

chootspa 5 years ago

He's taken the dem vote for granted all along. It's the independents he's been courting, and it turned out they didn't care for the compromiser in chief act much, either.

Fossick 5 years ago

Sure, but if they cared for the eat the rich act, they'd already be Democrats.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Is the Blamer in Chief still yapping about corporate jets? Or has he been distracted by another shiny object?

somedude20 5 years ago

It is a sad state of affairs when many of the rich say they are not being taxed enough and that their employees pay a higher rate than they (the rich) do.

Pete Kennamore 5 years ago

"many" as in one high profile person? Perhaps you should read the analysis published yesterday from the Non-partisan Tax Policy Center. The facts are that as a group, millionaires pay about twice the taxes as compared to the middle class.

beatrice 5 years ago

I guess you didn't read Larry David's letter to the editor in NYTimes a few months back. He thanked everyone for making sure he was able to fly his family first class on their vacation. It was terrific. Many others have voiced the same concern expressed by Buffet.

Pete Kennamore 5 years ago

Yup, we should base economic policy on the rantings of a left wing celebrity.

beatrice 5 years ago

And what was Reagan if not a right wing celebrity?

Pete Kennamore 5 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

beatrice 5 years ago

... or, we could insist that capital gains be taxed as income, putting an end to wealthy CEOs being paid in stocks rather than "income." It is an practice meant to unfairly favor those of means over those who earn a working wage.

Fossick 5 years ago

"Do you think this strategy has worked?"

Actually, it has, and that fact is very unfortunate, and the same problem as GWB's privatization* of SocSec idea. Most people have no business in the stock market. None. The stock market is a scam designed to move your hard-earned dollars to the bonuses of Goldman Sachs' upper management.

This is not sour grapes - I have plenty of gambling money on Wall Street and I win more often than not - but is an obvious truth. For example, if you pay attention to the financial press you will notice that occasionally they mention that one of the objectives of Fed policy is to "drive investors into riskier assets." Fed policy is designed to get ignoramuses (no offense) into stocks in search of yield. In reality, Fed policy is designed to get people to buy the stocks that overpaid, piratical CEOs are selling.

P/E ratios and P/B ratios are still at historic highs, while dividend yields are at historic lows. Stock prices are simply too high, and that is artificially supported by tax policy.

If you want to reduce the wealthy/non-wealthy division of the spoils, pray for a stock market crash**. But get the hell out of the way first.

  • by which he means, "instead of government, Wall Street should guard your money." Instead of the fox, trust the lion.... ** It's coming anyway. God does not play dice, etc....

georgeofwesternkansas 5 years ago

Where do you think this money will come from? You raise taxes on business and they raise prices on the products they sell. Raise taxes on the oil company they raise the price of gas.

Trying to soak one american soaks all americans. This argument is so lame and childish, making the "rich" pay makes all of us pay, unless you believe that someone is going to lower their standard of living to give the government more money to spend.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

So what's your point? Should we all work for free? After all, charging anybody anything just gets passed along, right?

georgeofwesternkansas 5 years ago

The President says I am only going to soak the rich in the name of fairness. But the truth is that it will soak us all. Raising taxes is just that.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

That's a statement of ideology-- not fact. (and mostly fact-free ideology, at that.)

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years ago

Hyperbole is hyperbolic... but sure, you are essentially right in your last sentence. Costs always get passed along. You raise my taxes and I will most certainly pass that cost along to you, prole.

bad_dog 5 years ago

Perhaps "some of those very Americans" you refer to are on board with his plans and don't need his plan repeeated endlessly to understand and agree?

beatrice 5 years ago

Actually, it would be hypocritical to say he didn't want the rich to contribute more, and then turned around and asked them to contribute more to his campaign. Asking them to contribute more, and to contribute to his campaign is being consistant.

He has been saying that he wanted to end the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy since he ran for office. This isn't coming as a surprise to anyone.

beatrice 5 years ago

Another brilliant cut and paste by snap from that stellar site -- "hotair."

Even if your fellow Americans decide they want to vote for someone other than Obama in the upcoming election, I don't quite understand why you would want to call them "rats." Why call your fellow American rats?

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

It's known as a figure of speech, bea. Native speakers of English use them rather often.

beatrice 5 years ago

A figure of speech, you say? Kind of like a certain term used to describe people associated with the Tea Party that you describe as "vulgar" virtually every time someone uses it?

Liberty275 5 years ago

B, you have heard that saying a million times.

beatrice 5 years ago

Yes, it is a common phrase. It is used to describe those associated with someone or something only for specific and (mostly) self-serving reasons who jump ship as soon as they sense something isn't going their way. I have never heard of calling voters who may (or likely will not) vote for a person of a different party as "rats" before.

However, do you know who used to describe fellow citizens as rats? Back in the '30s?

(oh, and might I suggest you keep your sarcasm meter on at all times)

Grundoon Luna 5 years ago

The republicans in Congress have an approval raing in the high teens. Their Tea Party colleagues in the low teens. So their approval raing is more than twice as low as the president's. The (R) ship sunk long ago. See ya in Nov. 2012 . . . . . .

verity 5 years ago

"The top 10%, rather than paying half of the total income taxes they did 3 decades ago, now pay 70%. The bottom half of taxpayers pay 2%. Fair share indeed."

Of course, these figures are meant to deceive. What is not being said is how much of the nation's wealth is being held by the different groups.


". . . the super rich in this country are taxed just 17 percent of their earnings while the rest of us average around 36 percent. . . . People who don't pay any income tax at all tend to have limited incomes, or they qualify for enough deductions -- think of child tax credits and mortgage interest -- that they have no income."

From the New York Times, 13 April 2010:

"Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation. So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was. . . . Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too. . . . State and local taxes, meanwhile, may actually be regressive. That is, middle-class and poor families may face higher tax rates than the wealthy."

Also, payroll taxes are not included in what is classified as income taxes. Those making more than $106,800 don't pay any payroll taxes on the amount above that, so if you make less than that, you are taxed at a higher percentage than those that make more than that figure.

Fossick 5 years ago

"Of course, these figures are meant to deceive. What is not being said is how much of the nation's wealth is being held by the different groups..."

"wealth held" /= income, amigo. As Merrill was talking about rates, he was talking about income taxes. The income tax numbers I posted are not meant to deceive, but to counter the deceptions of people who yap about "fair share" and tax breaks while ignoring the reality that when you're talking about income taxes*, the only people you're talking about is the top 10% of earners.

  • not all the other things like "how much of the nation's wealth is being held" that are not income and serve precisely the same purpose as a squid's ink.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

We have an economy based on a belief in unfairness, which results in the extreme concentration of wealth (and income) described above. And then the cheerleaders thereof want to complain when income taxes aren't "fair."

Go figure.

verity 5 years ago

I repeat from my comment below:

"Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America."

"Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, . . ."

verity 5 years ago

Continued from above.

From "Wealth, Income, and Power"

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. . . .In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America." The above article has some very interesting observations and if you are at all interested in educating yourself, I would recommend reading it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

Thanks for a few facts and a bit of perspective-- something I probably wasn't going to get from Fossick.

Fossick 5 years ago

I'm not your research service, hon. If you want to know the percentage of GDP collected in income and capital gains taxes over the past 30 years ago as compared to now, look it up yourself. Especially since I doubt you really care and are just floundering around for something to hang your "nuh-uh" on.

I will tell you that the percentage difference in total taxes, however, is within 1% of GDP, 19% vs 18%.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"I'm not your research service, hon."

Didn't ask you to be. Just figured as long as you're providing info, it might as well be complete info. Sorry if making that request put you into floundering mode.

"I will tell you that the percentage difference in total taxes, however, is within 1% of GDP, 19% vs 18%."

Which types of taxes? What's your source?

Fossick 5 years ago

Try this one, chart is on the top right side of the page:'s_Law

jesse499 5 years ago

I'm thinking that know matter what Obama are anyone else says the middle class gets screwed somehow in the ended. Because there not going to do a d-- thing to the people that are paying for there elections.

ferrislives 5 years ago

Elrond (anonymous) replies… "many" as in one high profile person? Perhaps you should read the analysis published yesterday from the Non-partisan Tax Policy Center. The facts are that as a group, millionaires pay about twice the taxes as compared to the middle class.

That would be a completely incorrect statement Elrond.

A group of "more than 40 millionaires" asked Obama to tax them more almost a year ago, and Buffet joined their chorus only afterwards. Whether or not you agree with this idea, you've got to state the facts. Please read up.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Buffet & his buds can freely donate to the US Treasury any time they want to.

HillaryForPresident 5 years ago

Obama is a failed experiment. He was voted to office for obvious reasons. Obama's flailing as a leader is evident in about everything he gets involved with. His recent speech to attack successful people is just one example of his helplessness and inability to man-up. He may need Zoloft.

Hillary does not need Zoloft and would l bring accountability back to the Presidency.

beatrice 5 years ago

For obvious reasons? Please explain what you mean by that. The only obvious reason I can think of is that he was by far the best candidate.

Fossick 5 years ago

Verity's link: "One final note: People who don't pay any income tax at all tend to have limited incomes*, or they qualify for enough deductions -- think of child tax credits and mortgage interest -- that they have no income."

Talk about intent to deceive. The fact that someone collects tax credits or compiles lots of deductions does not mean that person has no income. It means that person is legally paying no taxes on their income. We all do it - in fact, our current system is designed so that rather than a 10% rate being paid on your first dollar of income, for many, their tax rate is 0% for most of their income. For about 50% of Americans, their tax rate is zero on all their income.

I wonder how many of these then have the audacity to complain that other people are not paying enough in taxes.

  • This is opposed to most people who have unlimited incomes? ** They collect a monthly paycheck or a Vision card with $0.00 on it?

Fossick 5 years ago

"We are $70k/ per year two income house taking advantage of all available deductions... we are still paying over 20%"

Dude, I call BS. Even with only 2 people* and no other deductions, taking just the standard deduction ($11,600) and 2 personal exemptions (2 x $3700) would give you a taxable income of ~$51k. According to the IRS's tax table , the maximum tax due on that income is $4925, which is ~7% of $70,000. You might be surprised to learn that 7% is less than 20%. Significantly less. Then again, math is hard.

Oh, and FWIW, you just heard form a guy in the 0% bracket. Carry on, Mister 7%.

  • get some kids, it's makes the math easier. Or at least funner.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

I'm assuming the 20% number includes their SS, Medicare and FICA contributions, which are capped at somewhere around $100,000-- meaning million- and billionaires essentially get a free pass on particular tax, especially if the majority of their income is from capital gains, which I don't believe is taxed at all for the payroll tax items.

jayhawklawrence 5 years ago

Are business people patriotic?

I know that they think they are. They are among the most talented and responsible people in America.

Republican strategists know how to stroke their egos and they know how to convince them that Obama is out to screw them.

But is it really true?

No. What I believe is that most Republicans have been brainwashed. Watch the rhetoric as we get closer to the election. Don't you feel a little uncomfortable sometimes when you hear someone like Rick Perry saying strange things? I know you do.

The truth is that we can be deceived even when we have both eyes wide open. They know how to push our buttons. Democrats and Republicans have deceived us.

Today we have a guy in the White House who is trying to do a good job. He has made mistakes. I believe he is far better than McCain and Palin. Why don't we let him do his job?

Unfortunately, the Republicans are all about helping rich people and they have no ethics.

I voted Republican most of my life. These are not good people anymore.

jayhawklawrence 5 years ago

The only way we can make America better is to get involved.

Politicians can't make the necessary changes even if they want to.

It is up to the American people.

Crazy_Larry 5 years ago

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Crazy_Larry 5 years ago

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."

beatrice 5 years ago

Giving the wealthy massive tax cuts during a time of war and mounting debt is a form of class warfare.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

If I had the $500+ million the current regime whizzed away on Solyndra, I'd be rich! And then, Solyndra execs are covering for their sugar daddy in the White House.

Fossick 5 years ago

Whatthehell: "Oh, and nice job picking one issue and twisting the numbers around, while completely ignoring the primary points in my post in the first and last paragraphs."

I don't necessarily disagree with you, therefore I really don't feel a need to address your rhetorical questions in paragraph one or your common sense observations followed by sarcasm/strawman in the last paragraph. However, if you would like me to answer something specifically, ask away and I'll do my best.

As for the second paragraph, if you don't want people to call you out, make up better numbers next time. There are people here who actually understand tax rates and who gasp grasp the difference between payroll taxes and income taxes*. There are also people who love to mix definitions because their objective is not to understand nor to allow others to understand, but to justify their infantile outrage at the world for not giving them everything they think they deserve.

  • Not to mention the difference between income and wealth.

Fossick 5 years ago

"I get the difference..."

That wasn't for you specifically but for the sans-culottes on this thread who purposely mix them as a diversionary tactic.

Fossick 5 years ago

Agreed. In addition, paying more in taxes is more honest. If we want all this government, it is evil to pass the costs off on to our children. We need to suck it up and pay for it ourselves. May worms eat the gonads of those legislators who are too cowardly to tell voters that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Unfortunately, there is also no limit to the "problems" upon which government can spend money. Implementing a program does not reduce the number of programs yet to be implemented*. Therefore government will grow until it either cannot borrow any more, like Greece, or until it breaks the currency, like the Wiemar Republic. Either way, something wicked this way comes.

Plant a garden.

  • implementing a program to solve a problem does not even decrease the number of problems. Ever wonder why anti-poverty programs (Section 8, WIC, Medicaid and the like) are not counted as income, while poverty measurements count only income? Think it through.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.