-
Neighborhood Watch, Anyone?
May 14, 2013 | 19 comments
-
We’re Still Going Backward
April 18, 2013 | 30 comments
-
Street Level Anti-Capitalism
April 8, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Snazzy Sequestered Screeners
March 8, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Welfare’s Failure Amid Red Ink
February 7, 2013 | 23 comments
The Obama Watch
Willful Ignorance
Bashing the rich and keeping the poor poor.
With 15 million workers unemployed and another 11 million underemployed, President Obama recently decided that the answer was to hit the road and throw some anti-rich red meat to some friendly stadium audiences.
At a Labor Day rally in Milwaukee, Mr. Obama declared that the United States “didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness.”
He didn’t say whether we became the most prosperous country via income redistribution and mandatory wealth spreading.
He also didn’t say whether the “greed” accusation applied to folks like Jay-Z and Lady Gaga or just to the regular capitalists and entrepreneurs who run America’s car repair shops and jewelry stores on Main Street.
He also didn’t say whether his definition of “recklessness” includes the nonstop and decentralized risk-taking that’s inherent in a free enterprise economy, a system rooted in what Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction.”
Schumpeter was being positive. The endless string of winners and losers, the bankruptcies and newly formed companies, are essential components of an efficient and growing economy based on private property, limited government, and individual freedom.
For various types of central planners and statists, this process of decentralization and freedom has always looked way too messy and uncontrolled, way too prone to “recklessness.”
Mr. Obama also declared that “anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it’ll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up — they just haven’t studied our history.”
In fact, the history of the 1960s and 1980s, under Democrat and Republican presidents, shows that the benefits of cuts in top marginal income tax rates clearly trickled down to help “working folks” in the form of more jobs, less unemployment, less poverty, less inflation, and higher wage growth.
The John F. Kennedy income tax cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964, cutting the top marginal federal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, were followed by several years of 5 percent real GDP growth per year, dropping the unemployment rate from 5.2 percent in 1964 to 3.5 percent in 1969, a lower jobless rate than the 4.0 percent unemployment rate that’s generally defined as “full employment.”
Similarly, the Ronald Reagan income tax cuts produced real average annual GDP growth of 3.2 percent from 1981 to 1989, a higher growth rate than existed before and after the Reagan years — the 2.8 percent average real annual growth in the pre-Reagan years from 1974 to 1981, or the 2.1 percent growth in the post-Reagan years from 1989 to 1995.
Following the Reagan cut in the top marginal federal income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent, unemployment was cut in half, from 9.7 percent in 1982 to 5.3 percent in 1989.
And the impact on the poor? The real income, adjusted for inflation, of the poorest fifth of U.S. households increased 12 percent in the Reagan era, reversing a 17 percent decline in their average real income from 1979 to 1983 before Reagan’s pro-growth tax cuts kicked in.
The poverty population in the U.S., after growing by 7 million in the late 1970s, dropped by 4 million in the 1980s. The real median income, adjusted for inflation, of African-American households increased by 17 percent from 1982 to 1989, reversing a 10 percent decline from 1978 to 1982.
Obama’s strategy? Ignore the aforementioned history and raise taxes on “the rich” during a recession, for “fairness.” That’s a clear policy of economic and political “recklessness,” a strategy that will keep millions of people needlessly unemployed.
About the Author
Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (140) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ralph R. Reiland
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/13/willful-ignorance
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Nation on the Edge
- A President Loses His Power
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 6:32AM
Bullsh*t,
If you are poor, your percentage of the national income has DECREASED by 16% since the 1980s.
If you are middle class, your percentage of the national income has DECREASED by 20% since the 1980s.
If you are rich, your percentage of the national income has INCREASED by 15% since the 1980s.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www.....index.html
Supply-side economics has created the largest debt in the history of the world, $13+trillion. And, the Republicans want to barrow another $700 Billion from the Chinese, which our grandchildren, will have to payback, to give millionaires and billionaires another tax cut.
No Thanks!
Faffnir| 9.13.10 @ 7:40AM
No, sir, it is Congress which has created the debt by sustained profligate spending since 1932. At now time, to my memory, has Congress ever halted a program, no matter how dismal a failure it may have been. Congress' only solution has been to throw more money at it. The solution is to not only reduce taxes, but to shrink government back to its' Constitutionally mandated size, which is several orders of magnitude smaller than the wasteful behemoth we have today. When government drones stop trying to "spread the wealth", we will all prosper. And this prosperity will be of a magnificence that will make your eyes water.
JP| 9.13.10 @ 8:12AM
And pray tell how exactly has Obama, Reid, and Pelosi changed any of that? Since Obama took the helm, Wall St banks enjoy even larger profits than they saw circa 1998 to 2007. Those same banks sit on at least $1 trillion of hard cash, and the employees have seen bonus and compensation increases that actually dwarf anything in thier history. And for doing what? (subsidizing Obama's defecits). So, spare us the class warefare. Obama has been very, very good to JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, GE, GM, as well as federal workers and unions. Obama's $870 billion stimulus went to these "interests" and not to the "workers".
However, the middle class (those earning less than $65,000) were given huge tax breaks under Bush via the Earned Income Credit. Today, almost all married families earning less than $65,000 a year pay no federal income tax.
And most people realize that the outsourcing of middle class jobs is one of the prime reasons for the lowering of middle class incomes. But, the Left has gotten pretty much what it wants as far as regulations these past 4 decades. Everything from OSHA to regulations concerning agriculture, finances, inventory, credit, and a whole host of regulations cocerning HR, health care, etc make US employees uncompetitive. We see this even today. Those firms that are recovering has moved much of thier operations overseas.
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 9:00AM
I made to mention of “Obama, Reid, or Pelosi” my comments were directed at the failures of supply-side economics over the last thirty years.
“The outsourcing of middle class jobs is one of the prime reasons for the lowering of middle class incomes.”
CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But it has nothing to do with “regulations” it’s 0.25/ hour labor costs.
The Al| 9.13.10 @ 12:29PM
Vtwin,
Once again you comment on an incorrect aspect of the article. Every time you throw out a link and some statistics they happen to be the wrong statistics.
You said; "If you are poor, your percentage of the national income has DECREASED by 16% since the 1980s."
You're talking about the poors percentage of the national income. That is referring to the percentage of the entire country's income that is earned by the poor.
What the author of the article said was; " The real income, adjusted for inflation, of the poorest fifth of U.S. households increased 12 percent in the Reagan era, reversing a 17 percent decline in their average real income from 1979 to 1983 before Reagan's pro-growth tax cuts kicked in."
The author is not talking about the percentage of the country's income that is earned by the poor. He is talking about the average income that the poor earn. He's saying that on average, the poor were earning 12% more during the Reagan era than they were before it. This is vastly different from the information you posted. And in fact, using the numbers you posted, it actually helps to quantify that the Reagan tax cuts were beneficial.
The author shows that the Reagan tax cuts increased the amount of money that they poor were taking in as income. And you're (Vtwin) saying that the poor earn less of the total amount of money earned by the people of the United States. This correlates perfectly with the fact that the Reagan tax cuts also increased the GDP of the US. We have the country making more money, and the poor making more money. But the GDP was bringing in exponentially more money to the country than the poor were making extra, so the percentage of national income the poor were earning is actually lower, but they are making a higher income.
It's like this. Say the GDP grows and adds $40 billion to the economy. The poor start earning a higher median income, and this accounts for an extra $1 billion of that $40 billion. Well now you have the median income growing for the poor, but it is 1/40th of how much the GDP grew. So the poors additional income is less of a percentage of the total national income, but it has still accounted for an increase in the the wages of the poor.
Your arguments are always worded differently than the actual topic that we are discussing. Upon quick glance it seems like you are making a good point. But when you just think about what you're saying, it become painfully obvious that you are simply incorrect or misleading everybody. I urge everybody to take a good look at anything Vtwin says and use facts to prove him wrong. Because it's not all that hard to do so and is much more rewarding to show his is full of it than to call him names.
JmsA| 9.14.10 @ 12:43AM
The Al,
Don't be too hard on vitwin; he has a rather malleable mind, especially when it comes to swallowing all his statist masters dish out. After all, he knows very little about statistics proper, though he parrots such offerings by the government as it were gospel, despite the fact that as everyone knows, such figures are manipulated to suit the current regime's aims--something akin to the farcical and long since discredited "jobs saved" meme. Remember also, vitwin did not know that Medicare and Social Projections the government put forth under "Actuarial Publications," were arrived at through statistical analysis. He in fact cited political polling as a sample use of statistics in response to my referencing statistical manipulation, particularly in the part of the government. He also referred to said governmental entitlement projections as business reports. I don't believe anything this lefty troll puts out, for it does not amount to anything more than old and tired leftist talking points--to which most of the country has turned a deaf ear.
Radegunda| 9.13.10 @ 4:59PM
I'm not sure why we're supposed to feel good that single people earning less than $25,000 a year are essentially subsidizing "married families" earning up to $65,000, by paying the federal income taxes (and not just payroll taxes) that the latter are not paying.
Occam's Tool| 9.13.10 @ 10:15PM
We are supposed to feel good because the married folks are producing the taxpayers who will pay for the childless people's social security when their time comes (in addition to protecting the country when the childless are old). As a general rule, children are raised best in homes with happy marriages. Money is a major cause for argument in marriages.
You want a tax code that rewards proper behavior.
Indiana Alex| 9.13.10 @ 8:41AM
And income redistribution will make whom better off?
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 8:49AM
Income redistribution is what supply-side economics is about, redistribute income from the middle class who produce to the upper class who consume.
Kishego| 9.13.10 @ 10:50AM
If you weren't such a "useful idiot", and actualy educated yourself in macro economics, instead of just pulling useless statistics off a site that needs those same statistics to reflect what they want it to reflect. You would understand how embarrasing your ingnorance really is.
JmsA| 9.14.10 @ 12:47AM
Thank you, and thank you again, Kishego; though I fear it is all for naught. Vitwin will never get it. He can't think for himself. All he does is repeat, as instructed by his minders, the usual divide and conquer, class warfare non-sense.
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 2:05PM
Income redistribution has absolutely nothing to do with supply-side economics. Nothing. And, if you would do just a little bit of research, you would see that I am correct.
Income redistribution is what Obama/Pelosi/Reid and the rest of the idiots in Washington are doing with their "health care" bill that is all about control and little about health.
Beboper| 9.14.10 @ 4:58AM
True: Supply side and Income redistribution are essentially mutually exclusive economic concepts. Supply side posits that, via investment, all boats are lifted. Income redistribution necessitates that, eventually, no one will have an income.
Vitwin does little more than regurgitate re-education camp slogans. Perhaps Vitwin should learn another economic lesson: If, down the road, he doesn't have anything to offer his masters that they may either need or want, other than his current tiresome slogans, they'll chuck him overboard just as surely as these same brigands are laying waste to as much productivity as they can, here and now, lay their vicious mits on.
Albert| 9.13.10 @ 4:51PM
Supply side economics has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. You statement is patently ridiculous. It is GOVERNMENT that confiscates and redistributes wealth. The government YOU support. Supply side economics is merely freedom, freedom to invest and profit. This does not "redistribute" wealth, it creates wealth. Further, the notion that the "middle class produce and the upper class consume" is ludicrous. Both classes work, produce, and consume.
It is a Marxian myth that history is a continuing struggle between the very rich and the very poor. It is not. The very rich (usually in government) and the very poor have had a symbiotic relationship throughout history, as the very rich support the very poor economically, and the very poor support the very rich politically. And it is the middle class that pays for it. This is why the most leftist-Marxist of people in government tend to be among the richest. They profit personally from government, while maintaining a population living in poverty as ready-made, paid-for voters. It is only natural that Marxists would hate the middle class and seek to destroy it.
It is because of supply side economics that during the Reagan 1980's the poverty class shrunk as formerly poor people moved up into the middle class in a thriving economy. But rather than enjoy prosperity, Marxists like President Bozo and Nancy Pelosi, destroy prosperity, because votes are more to them important than people. Because power is more important that prosperity. Because their egos trump everything else.
coal carier| 9.13.10 @ 5:15PM
Words of Wisdom:
It is better to remain silent and thought of as a fool, then to open thy mouth and remove all doubt.
dillon1340| 9.13.10 @ 9:39AM
That's funny. Use the government's website to support your claim. You are a very trusting individual.
Tom| 9.13.10 @ 10:08AM
Vtwin,
Do you find income inequality a problem in itself? Would you prefer a poor nation with a Gini coefficient of o over a rich nation with a Gini coefficient of .46 ?
A certain level of income equality is necessary for an economy to be efficient. It allows the economy to reward work it considers most important. I think people instinctively understand a CEO should not be paid the same as a garbage man.
Tom
Lib Destroyer| 9.13.10 @ 10:16AM
You are forgetting one thing, its our money the government doesn't produce a thing, except waste.
Stephanie| 9.13.10 @ 1:35PM
BINGO!
Flee| 9.13.10 @ 3:31PM
Are you living in bizarro world? You spout the exact opposite of what took place and is taking place now. How do you state Republicans want to borrow from Chinese? They control nothing at the moment that would allow any power to borrow other than on their cars or homes. Try to keep your attacks honest.
WhiteBikerTrash| 9.13.10 @ 6:45PM
Honda Boy, Do you know who first said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." ?
Now did you know that those in the bottom 5th saw their incomes nearly double in the past decade, in real inflation adjusted dollars, and the top 5th's income? They only saw a 10% increase of real adjusted dollars! Find new talking points!!
Jeff D. Page | 9.13.10 @ 9:28PM
learn how to spell, borrow. And it would be teh Democrats who need to borrow to pay for their spending, not the Republicans. please study this, and you are off base terribly.
Alan Brooks| 9.13.10 @ 10:46PM
"a system rooted in what Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction."
That's it: America is not about Jesus or Mother Theresa, America is about Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises.
Love is for church; outside a house of worship your families are economic ciphers (not to mention Darwinist integers).
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 7:05AM
The poverty rate for ALL Americans reach its low point of 11.1% in the late seventies.
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#2
And, Income disparity “according to IRS data” in the United States has risen steadily since the early eighties and is now worse than any period since before the Great Depression.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2....._1012.html
And, the National debt has also risen steadily from less than $1 trillion before Reagan took office to over $11 trillion before Obama took office.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....stdebt.htm
Sorry “professor of economics” but Reaganomics is destroying the middle class in the United States and indebting our nation to foreigners.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.10 @ 7:16AM
vtwin,
Your very first sentence blows your talking points right out of the toilet:
""If you are poor, your percentage of the national income has DECREASED by 16% since the 1980s."
You ignorant loser. Looking at percentages of income, is merely the old "Class Envy" card with no substance.
That statistic merely reflects percentages, not real income growth among the poor and middle class during those years due to a hugely growing "pie" being created by solid economics.
You are simply wading around in the ole' "zero sum" game preached by communists since day one.
Ret. Marine| 9.13.10 @ 7:36AM
Thanks Ken for the remake, I almost spit my coffee onto the screen over that post from the two head empty clinder Vtwin. You don't suppose he really is a communist, obamas Bin Ly'n supporters do you Ken? Me thinks so. Either that or he really is a product of the medern edumacation system. Vtwin as in two headed empty cylinders?
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 8:43AM
You comment, but you say nothing!
Doorgunner| 9.13.10 @ 8:53AM
You have nothing, yet you comment.
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 9:09AM
Or maybe it just went over your head.
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 2:08PM
Or, maybe you should do some research.
JmsA| 9.14.10 @ 12:51AM
vitwin,
It is difficult to comment about insignificance.
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 8:41AM
"You ignorant loser."
FUCK YOU TO!
Redstateboy| 9.13.10 @ 8:59AM
Me thinks vtwin didn't get laid over the weekend
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 9:04AM
No, I just get tired of air heads who have nothing to contribute but insults.
Dustoff| 9.13.10 @ 11:50AM
LOL......... this statement coming from a fool who uses the F-word.
Yeah that well work!
TR| 9.13.10 @ 12:21PM
Redstateboy, it is obvious from several weeks of reading these posts that vtwin is a accompishment-envy sad angry little man, probably a pimple faced post pubescent. He more than likely has never been laid, and his primary mission in his sad little insignificant life is to bitch and complain about success of others while coming up with great comments like his last retort.
He is here only to provoke thoughtful responses from people like you, like Ken old Texican, like Ret. Marine, and others that respond almost daily.
He is a useful idiot, and we should celebrate that his damaged brain can figure out how to use a computer to allow us to see how stupid liberals are.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 9.13.10 @ 9:38AM
What a brilliant display of your debating skills. I would be impressed but I have changed thousands of diapers in my day, so have much experience with that for which your words are a poor substitute.
And in response to your 6:32 AM display of intellectual vacuity, I will once again bother you with facts: 1) OUR Constitution mandates that all federal spending originate in the House of Ill Repute and only after being passed by the Sin-ate does it become law. A President’s role is strictly limited to proposing, signing or not signing spending bills. If a President refuses to sign such legislation by exercising a formal veto this could be overturned by a two-thirds vote in each House. Your beloved dumb-ocrats have been in charge of both brothels since January 2007. This was too late for their talent for economic destruction to become manifest for that fiscal year. The nanny botoxic - hairy red budget for 2008 was their first to attack the American People. For the fiscal years 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 OUR Deficit was less than $400 billion. In 2004 it exceeded that level by just a relatively small amount. In 2008, the deficit was higher than for any of the previous 5 years. In 2009 the deficit exploded by a factor of 3 to a level in excess of $1,200 billion (or if you prefer $1.2 trillion). It is on track to remain at this exceptionally obscene level as long as the dumbo-crats and their psychphantic rino co-conspirators remain in office.
Your hype and chains golden calf was elected because he fooled folks into thinking that he alone could fix all the economic problems created by THE EVIL BUSH (it’s all his fault). All he’s demonstrated is a remarkable talent for partying like there’s no tomorrow.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
Don’t Tread on Me.
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” - Hanlon's Razor
Only 860 days to go
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 10:09AM
The nation’s accumulated debt from its founding circa 1776 to the inauguration of Reagan in 1981 totaled LESS than $1 trillion. Over two hundred years of government spending, the Revolutionary War, two World Wars, Korean War, War, the Vietnam the WAR on poverty, the Great Depression…
But then Reagan managed to triple this debt in just eight years. This was followed by Bush, Clinton, and Bush who in twenty years more than tripled it again. Yes, I know Clinton pass a surplus to BUSH but this was short lived once the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.
So no, the debt problem was not just the “EVIL BUSH” but can be traced all the way back to the Reagan Administration.
clf| 9.13.10 @ 10:27AM
vtwin
get a job. find a hobby. your rants annoy.
scotchieguy| 9.13.10 @ 11:11AM
"But then Reagan managed to triple this debt in just eight years." OK, who are you really upset with, Reagan, or the liberal congress who increased spending that resulted in such huge debts? You do realize Reagan was not a monarch, right? Same thing w/ Clinton. Isn't it interesting that the surpluses came into being after the '94 congress came into power. Why does Reagan get to take the heat, and Clinton get to take the credit in your little mixed-up mind? Same thing w/ Bush. Under his first five years, the economy was humming along just fine, until '07 when the Dems. controlled both houses. Again, why does Bush not get any credit for the first two thirds of his administration? I think you are being very intellectually dishonest, and that is paying you a complement.
scotchieguy| 9.13.10 @ 11:15AM
One other thing, VTwin. Why no mention of the huge deficits under Obama. This time, there can be no mistaking it--they have tripled from Bush's first term to the present ($400 bil. to $1.2 tril.). The blame needs to be saddled on a liberal House, a liberal Senate, and a very liberal Prez. What say you, Professor?
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 2:11PM
Excellent post.
Bob Grant| 9.13.10 @ 4:55PM
You're obviously a shill for the Sarah Palin camp :-)
Redstateboy| 9.13.10 @ 11:39AM
Thank you and well put
skip| 9.13.10 @ 11:23AM
Reagan's 'debt' was the result of his tax cuts combined with the refusal to cut spending by the democrat's control of both houses of congress. Clinton's 'surplus' was the result of republican's control of both houses of congress overriding his spending policies. I don't know what 'vtwin' stands for, but I have a good idea the third and fourth letters come straight from the title of this article.
Tom| 9.13.10 @ 1:04PM
There was no surplus under Clinton, the appearance of a surplus was through borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund. Total national debt increased each and every year of Clinton's presidency.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 9.13.10 @ 12:57PM
Actually, Terence P. Jeffrey’s CNSNews.com article posted September 08, 2010, states, “In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.” Note: Washington through Reagan.
The only President from the Washington through Reagan era still living is a certain peanut farmer from Georgia. Since that lone survivor gets a pass from the loonie left, there are no living Presidents from that era available for BUSH-whacking.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
Don’t Tread on Me.
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“All we want are the facts, ma'am” - Joe Friday
Only 860 days to go
Occam's Tool| 9.13.10 @ 10:20PM
vtwin:
"Anger is a weapon of use only to your enemy." Focus on logic and reason. I fail to see where telling people to aggressively fornicate is an argumentation strategy.
Please note that I have avoided ad hominem attacks. I happen to be a master of them; you don't want to engage in mindgames with a board certified psychiatrist, m'boy.
Leroy| 9.14.10 @ 6:04PM
So you're a psychiatrist, it hardly makes you a master of mindgames. You're an MD with a sprinkling of training in drug treatment and maybe a little bit of pyschodynamic or behavioral treatment. I'd much rather tangle with a psychiatrist than a Jesuit; Jesuits will just chew you up.
Loshooligan| 9.13.10 @ 9:42AM
Well there it is folks. Vtwit has reached the height of his intellectual capacity.
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 10:11AM
Wow, that was impressive!
Lib Destroyer| 9.13.10 @ 10:20AM
Typical Lib, can't debate, just spout talking points and then curse at people.
Bob K.| 9.13.10 @ 7:49AM
Stop covering up for the Clinton Administration! It created all the domestic problems you mention with it's corruption and greed! It's half baked Foreign Policy started the mess we now have in the Near East and the Balkans. NAFTA. Military secrets to China. Raising political funds from foreign interests. Selling pardons. Ruby ridge. Elian Gonzales. Politicizing the FBI and Justice department. Bombing aspirin factories. "Lost" records hidden in the first ladies office. Cover ups of suicides of former law partners and government officials Impeachment. Stained dresses and honor. The list is endless!
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 8:33AM
Worried about “Military secrets to China?”
What about American corporations who are building a modern industrial base for China, which China is using to build a modern military?
“Bombing aspirin factories?”
What about Bush who lied us into a war that has cost the LIVES of 5,000 American?
“Politicizing the Justice department?”
Hello, Alberto “ I don’t recall” Gonzales?
…
Bob K.| 9.13.10 @ 9:14AM
Thanks for your response. It helps establish that you are nothing but a Clinton suck up troll.
vtwin| 9.13.10 @ 10:26PM
I am not a clinton suck troll, I worship at the altar of obama's anus.
GavInTucson| 9.15.10 @ 12:54AM
Well, at least you got one thing right today.
Redstateboy| 9.13.10 @ 9:22AM
by 2020 - the INTEREST - on our National Debt will pay the entire Military budget for the People's Liberation Army. This is the Debt you Messiah and your Slavery Party is accumlating building your Socialist Paradise.
xyu67| 9.13.10 @ 9:47AM
Another thread of vitriolic, hysterical comments from angry, poorly-informed old men with too much time on their hands.
I've got better things to do than read this destructive rubbish.
But here's a little advice: Hey, geezers! Time to tear yourselves away from your greasy, smudged computer screens and attempt to do something constructive.
Bob K.| 9.13.10 @ 10:05AM
I see you have spent some time in front of the screen yourself. It was monday morning 9:47 AM when you entered your post. You should be out working! Didn't the Messiah's stimulus package get you a job? Or are you waiting to look for one after your 99 weeks of unemployment compensation runs out?
xyu67| 9.13.10 @ 10:18AM
Bob K.,
I am vacationing at Hilton Head Island (ever heard of it?), at my brother's ocean-front vacation house, and he is a regular reader of AmSpec.
He asked me to take a look at AmSpec, but I can't stomach the comments. Far too reactionary for my taste.
Off to splash in the surf . . .
Sheila| 9.13.10 @ 10:48AM
Gee, your brother reads moderately-conservative websites and has an ocean-front vacation home, while you, oh-so-superior xyu67, cannot "stomach" such impure thoughts while you freely make use of someone else's economic gains. Hope you continue to stay liberal and grow poorer. Decline and fall.
Bob K.| 9.13.10 @ 10:58AM
Good for you!
The next time you want to sponge off your brother's largesse ask him to send you to that socialist paradise, China, where you can breathe their unpolluted air.
Hey, the world is your oyster! While you are in China you can sample one from it's pristine waters! Then, after you get sick, you can sample China's world famous Socialized Medicine.
Be careful about your brother. It looks like he set you up to illustrate the saying that "friends you can chose, but stupid relatives you are stuck with!"
Redstateboy| 9.13.10 @ 11:45AM
As most Liber-uls.. you add Nothing to civic discourse other than to reveal typical effete, condescending elitism. If you were just honest and LOOK where Liber-ulism holds sway; you would see poverty and misery. Your political philosophy is bankrupt and your Messiah is the glaring epitome of the failure of Liber-ulism.
TR| 9.13.10 @ 12:26PM
Again, a useful idiot liberal who says he has better things to do than read this "destructive rubbish" while reading said "rubbish" and posting comments. xyu, you are a moron. Go collect your welfare check courtesy of the producers, you leech. Attempt to do something constructive.
Doorgunner| 9.13.10 @ 8:28AM
What Vtwerp neglects to mention is that the overall wealth of the entire U.S. populace has gone up, steadily, since WWII. Though percentages of the overall pot have shifted, we are all better off.
Twenty minutes at the website of the Bureau of Economic Analysis will refute every argument this cheap propagandist has made today.
Doorgunner| 9.13.10 @ 8:51AM
Let me qualify the "...we are all better off."...
... it took Obama and his 'unprecedented' debt increases and money printing to devalue the dollar to the extent that we now face the prospect of real poverty in this country.
Booger| 9.13.10 @ 9:33AM
So the model for the Obama crowd is the late 70s. All becomes clear.
Texas Mom 2010| 9.13.10 @ 1:04PM
I agree Booger. I said before Obama was elected that he was Carter. Now I say he is Carter Squared. I lived (endured) through the Carter malaise and didn't think it would happen again. Dang it!
Tom| 9.13.10 @ 10:14AM
Vtwin,
While poverty is of course a bad thing you ignore several salient points by looking at raw numbers alone. The two most important are: the nature of what we define as poor is not fixed, poor people today are better fed, own more material goods, and are healthier than anytime in our history; and a large driver of increased poverty rates is an increase of female led single parent families, this is primarily a sociological/cultural phenomena not economic.
Stephanie| 9.13.10 @ 1:36PM
Your bong needs cleaning vtwin. Please go tend to that post haste.
Tim*| 9.13.10 @ 2:20PM
DUUUUUHHHHH !
The National Debt has increased a record $1.769 TRILLION Dollars in
just 7 months...if Obama continues the current rate of spending
the debt will have increased $7.076 TRILLION dollars in just 4 YEARS !
Obama is an Economic Gravedigger .
Appleby| 9.13.10 @ 7:34AM
Hey Vtwin, 16% of what?
Are you assuming that all the money in the USA is in a single giant pot, and that somebody with a big ladle is filling the National Begging Bowls?
Faffnir| 9.13.10 @ 7:51AM
Yes, he seems to make the same assumption that all statists and socialists make, that the Government has first claim on all the income of all its' subjects - er, citizens. It has been proved time and again throughout history that the only thing a government can do to an economy is screw it up and we are seeing another proof today. I wonder what it is in the water or air of the dismal former swamp that is the District of Columbia that leads those who work there to assume that they know more than their consituents and are more able to direct the actions of millions of individuals than those individuals themselves? Whatever it is, we need to spread some DDT or something around to get rid of it.
Failing that we need to throw the rascals out until they realise that they work for us, not the other way around.
Texas Mom 2010| 9.13.10 @ 1:05PM
Drain the Swamp Nov 2nd...
Petronius| 9.13.10 @ 7:37PM
Close but no cigar. The Democunts believe that the nations wealth is just that. What people possess as individuals is simply what Their government allows us to keep. One of these slugs told me to my face,
"all the money is ours." He means that his economically illiterate mob not only controls taxation and spending, but also attitudes, appetites, and consumption based on how he "feels" about who is deserving or not.
The next day I put this bumper sticker on my car.
"Your Fair Share is not in MY Wallet"
Louis Jenkins| 9.13.10 @ 8:31AM
Yes, it's what the Pretender n Chief ain't saying that's the problem. Get real! He's not going to say it either because it works. Obama is a socialist.
Petronius| 9.13.10 @ 8:51AM
We know the teleprompter made him do it. Such rhetoric is a perfect example of the typical collectivist sandbox mentality utilizing the artifice of comparing what the winners "get" to what the losers don't. Was there any reference using the word "earn"? And his audience is livid because they've all lost their binkies. They might try growing up. The world is an arena. The first things required for economic advancement are belief in propriety and concepts of value. This president is not Robin Hood. He's the corrupt sheriff. But who needs reality when they can elect a myth?
Old Soldier| 9.13.10 @ 9:18AM
President Obama reminds me of the real culprit in the Robin Hood Fable - King Richard.
Richard hated England. It was nothing except a big source of income for him to blow in France and the Middle East. In his absence he appointed incompetent czars to extract the maximum tax revenue from the peasants for Richard to use to increase Richard's glory.
buckeyeman| 9.13.10 @ 9:57AM
Quite true. Robin Hood took back tax money from the thieving elite class and returned it to those who EARNED it. He is far too often portrayed as a redistributionist but is much more properly seen as a tax protester.
A. Murray Kahn| 9.13.10 @ 9:08AM
Poor Mr. vtwin lives in a magic world where assertions have the force of truth. A point by point unraveling of his (or her) silliness would take a moderate sized book. In short, one may only observe that financial outcomes is apparently the master virtue in that magic world. It tells us a great deal about vtwin's moral vision. Given such a shrunken, palsied world view, all of the distorted, perverse conclusions follow naturally. Reagonomics destroying the middle class? We were able to employ uncounted millions of illegal aliens AND keep the unemployment rate below 5%. Anyone who wanted a job could have one. The rich (as they always do ) hired architects, designers, gardeners, bought paintings, attended theater and musical events, read good books, hired lawyers, bought boats, restored important buildings and so on. The middle class and upper-middle class artisans, engineers, doctors (in short a vibrant culture) depends on the patronage of the rich. If anyone wants to see what life is like without the rich, with only political power at the top of the food chain, go to Cuba - please! Castro last week admitted that the model doesn't even work for Cuba. And yet … and yet, they evened out the income - ah - except for the political elite of course.
Spoonman| 9.13.10 @ 9:26AM
An in Cuba, that bastion of economic success lots of liberals love, the average working person's monthly compensation is a $20 (US) - WOW, let's see if we can do lots of that in America!
Bubba| 9.13.10 @ 9:17AM
According to my tax returns I'm living in poverty, mentioned a recent news story to a friend who is self employed and he also lives in poverty according to statistics. Everyone should have it so good, my house is paid for and $10,000 daily swings in my investments don't even bother me.It's just some number at this point, whatever.
The news story said the people doing the counting don't count net worth or government aid people get or take into account people like my friend investing in his business and taking all sorts of section 179 depreciation on equipment he buys.
If the people on government aid received a 1099 for the value of all the aid they received right down to free school lunches for their kids and subsidised college few people in the country would be living in poverty and if the IRS asked for estimated household net worth more people wouldn't be listed as living in poverty.
If somebody has their daughter who has a child living with them, by looking at their daughters tax return it would look like her and her child live in poverty, but they live with their family so aren't living in poverty.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.10 @ 9:22AM
Mr. Reiland,
You could not have invented a better title for your article: "Willful ignorance".
vtwin here, perfectly illustrates your correct assesment.
I personally prefer "arrogance of ignorance", but that is just my own little invention. (smile)
What is truly amazing to me is the RCVs of the country; guys who have enjoyed some success.
Do they simply feel guilty about the way they have built their nest eggs? Have they in fact "gotten theirs", and now weep crocodile tears on behalf of the "downtrodden"?
"The Nays of Texas" is coming right along. It is coming as fast as I can think it through.
Thank you for your article.
Bob K.| 9.13.10 @ 10:14AM
Good points from both yourself and the Professor, Ken.
I recall a similar phrase: "Invincible ignorance!"
RCV| 9.13.10 @ 5:51PM
RCV here, Ken. I don't weep crocodille tears on behalf of the downtrodden. I remember where I came from. I work to give them the same opportunities America has always given people, to ease their sufferings a bit as they do so, and to try and preserve our constitutional liberties in the process.
Look forward to the opus, sir.
Redstateboy| 9.13.10 @ 9:25AM
Hilter blamed the Jews, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Engles, Mao and Obama blame the Rich and the Band played on
Spoonman| 9.13.10 @ 9:36AM
Gentlemen, Oblama cannot resist the urge to take pot shots at working folks who have taken the opportunity to start a business, invested their own funds and worked incredibly hard to make their dream a success for them and their employees - and in my 55 years, I cannot think of a President who commonly says such negative things about his fellow countrymen.
RacerJim| 9.13.10 @ 12:17PM
And in my 67 years, I cannot think of a POTUS who inherantly acts and speaks so negatively about his country and countrymen that it appears Obama is neither of our country or our countryman.
Margie| 9.13.10 @ 10:23PM
The Muslim Sympathizer-in-Chief is no friend of America, that is for certain.
Redstateboy| 9.13.10 @ 9:29AM
He got elected with slick propaganda by pandering to the dolts that he would be a Uniter and there can be NO question that he is the Most Divisive President second only to Lincoln.
pineapple1| 9.13.10 @ 10:25AM
I cannot believe that someone else holds my view that Lincoln was not the "good" president that history makes him out to be. He actually did America a great disservice.
Redstateboy| 9.13.10 @ 11:48AM
well... I didn't really say that. Lincoln was divisive but in my opinion, for the right reasons. Slavery was wrong - yet States Rights are correct. Obama is a Statist - I don't think Lincoln was a Statist.
EricTheRedVM | 9.13.10 @ 9:57AM
The most depressing thing about all of this is that people like "vtwin" cancel out my vote.
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary
RichTex| 9.13.10 @ 11:46AM
What difference does it make what the percentage of the national income a certain group of people earn? Instead , the question to be asked is whether the individual is free to reach the highest level of income his own capabilities and desires allow him to reach. Only in a command economy is there someone who can allocate the share of the national income among various groups.
Methinks vtwin is a college professor somewhere who can’t stand that there are those who make more than the $150K or so he makes per year. Particularly, it irks him that those who do exceed his income level are “businessmen”! He longs for that command economy where his vast contributions to society are finally recognized and he is justly rewarded. Plus, he thinks he will be one of those in command who will be able to exercise revenge on those he has long envied.
FLOYD KRAUTNER| 9.13.10 @ 10:24AM
Since everyone here debates conservative-liberal policies here are some facts to chew on—
*********
How Democrats, Republicans compare
Yagil Hertzberg
San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, September 12, 2010
For years I have been trying to persuade supporters of the other major American party to change their mind and vote with me, to no avail. That is, until last week, when three politically minded friends came over for an evening of snacks and politics, and, halfway through the evening, I unleashed my new one-two approach to political persuasion.
First, I asked my friends how they would go about choosing a new dishwasher. We agreed that the responsible and rewarding method would be to ignore any marketing hype and instead follow the Best Buy recommendations by Consumer Reports. Because nobody mentioned the virtues or shortcomings of, say, Whirlpool's executives as a valid criterion for choosing the appliance, I asked why they argue for hours about the perceived personalities of the candidates instead of comparing the track records of the major parties. My friends answered that it's simple enough to summarize the essential properties of dishwashers, while the elections are about a large number of issues that defy easy tabulation. Therefore, they concentrate on the candidates, hoping that by choosing the right person for the job, the elected official will make the right decisions when dealing with all those different issues.
I used to share this view myself, but then I checked the numbers. I was surprised to find out that the results of comparing the track records of the two major parties fall neatly (with one exception) into two categories - economy and family values. In my analysis, I compared all administrations going back to 1960 and all states based on how they voted in the presidential elections since 1980.
It was time for the second phase. I presented my friends with a list of numbers. To overcome bias, I used symbols (A, B, C and D) to represent the two major parties under the two categories. All state-related numbers (including those for the District of Columbia) are per person.
Economy
Jobs: Since 1960, each of the A Party administrations has delivered higher rates of jobs creation than any of the B Party administrations.
Deficit: Since 1960, the deficit each of the A Party administrations has passed to its successor was lower than the one it inherited, while each of the B Party administrations has increased the deficit. The average yearly deficit under the B Party administrations was 277 percent higher than the average deficit under the A Party.
Productivity: The gross state product of the 20 states that voted for the A Party candidate at least 5 times out of the last 8 elections (let's call them the A states) is 15 percent higher than the other states (the B states).
Household income: The median household income in the A states is 16 percent higher than in the B states.
Poverty: The percentage of persons below the poverty level in the A states is 21 percent lower than in the B states.
Health insurance: The percentage of people without health insurance in the A states is 25 percent lower than in the B states.
Advantage: Party A
Family values
Divorce: The divorce rate of the 20 states who voted for the C Party candidate at least 5 times out of the of last 8 elections (let's call them the C states) is 19 percent lower than the other states (the D states).
Birth to teenagers: The teenage birth rate in the C states is 38 percent lower than in the D states.
Birth to unmarried women: The unmarried women birth rate in the C states is 7 percent lower than in the D states.
Infant mortality: Children born in C states are 24 percent less likely to die before their first birthday than children in D states.
Murder: The murder rate in the C states is 17 percent lower than in the D states.
Rape: The forcible rape rate in the C states is 20 percent lower than in the D states.
Aggravated assault: The aggravated assault rate in the C states is 18 percent lower than in the D states.
Robbery: The robbery rate in the C states is 10 percent higher than in the D states (This is the one exception).
High school dropouts: The dropout rate in the C states is 16 percent lower than in the D states.
College: The college graduation rate in the C states is 16 percent higher than in the D states.
Advantage: Party C
I asked each of my friends to pick the category he or she considers more crucial, and then I showed them the key to the symbols.
That's when I was rewarded with my first success at achieving a crossover vote. To check whether your own preferences align with your vote, turn to Page E10.
The answers
This is the key to the identity of the two political parties analyzed by Yagil Herzberg in "The long view of the other party" on Page E3:
A - The Democratic Party
B - The Republican Party
C - The Democratic Party
D - The Republican Party
Yagil Hertzberg is an engineer who lives in Sunnyvale. Contact The Chronicle via our online form at sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1.
This article appeared on page E - 3 of the 12 SEPTEMBER 2010 San Francisco Chronicle
************
Considering the facts going back 40 years what do you say?
skip| 9.13.10 @ 11:05AM
I say two salient facts to bear in mind are: 1) numbers and data can easily be manipulated; 2) the author is employed by the san francisco chronicle. I say all this 'objective data' are a pack of lies provided by a liar.
FLOYD KRAUTNER| 9.15.10 @ 9:27AM
Then show us where the facts are being twisted.
Part of the GOP goal of "dumbing down" the country is to put their illiterate propaganda over.
George S| 9.13.10 @ 11:57AM
Let's look into this a little...
Jobs: Very clever to use "Administration" instead of policy or "Congress". Crediting Clinton with the fruits of the Reagan policies and the Gingrich congress' tax cuts would render that statistic meaningless and overly general.
Deficit: Again, the word "Administration" is misleading. Congresses pass deficits, not Presidents. As I'm sure the Chronicle will underscore to its readers in 2012.
I'm bored already. Also, are these "numbers" snapshots, that is, California was the B and D party in 1960 and the A and C part today-- so are all the bad things since then dumped into B and D while all the good things are dumped into A and C?
Statistics are numbers people use to make a point. They are meaningless unless you dig into them. For example, three out of four people are, on average, 120 years old. Think about it -- it's a very valid statistic.
Redstateboy| 9.13.10 @ 3:29PM
what a bunch of crap.. I'm a refugee from that Liber-ul Gulag - the People's Republic of NY and I can tell you that life is waaaaay better in TN. I have witnessed with my own two eyes what life is like in Liber-ulist Hell and experience what life is like being in Conservative Heaven.. I like Heaven thank you.
Nunya| 9.13.10 @ 4:02PM
The first day of my graduate statistics class, my professor stated the following, attributing it to Benjamin Disraeli : "There are three types of lies: Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics."
He followed the statement up by this: "Remember that statistics can be manipulated, and one must always follow through with their research on stated statistics. One of the most telling things to look for when researching a stated statistic, is WHO paid for the study!"
In this case, I would amend that slightly to "who benefits by the study".
Occam's Tool| 9.13.10 @ 10:29PM
Presidents are meaningless regarding the economy unless they can sway Congress; the South is always behind and was Democratic for years before the 1960s when it changed to Republican.
Lowering taxes helps build strong economies and jobs. Centralized economies die. Chicago and New York and LA are quite dangerous cities---Chi has always been under a Democrat, NYC is usually under a Democrat or RINO, and LA is usually Democratic.
NYC has a more robust economy than Dallas, right now. Right.
Kurt| 9.13.10 @ 11:13AM
Floyd, HaHaHaHa, You really fooled us!!!! You got your reliable info from sf-gate??? That would be like getting your FACTS from Al Gore on global warming!!!! Switching the c and d around REALLY fooled me...NOT!!! Take yourself and your so called FACTS to HUFFPO!!!
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.13.10 @ 11:53AM
I read some of these comments and they are humorous.
Some claim that the poverty rate is higher but ignore the fact that the government has spent over 7 trillion since the Great Society has launched and poverty is higher then ever.
At this point we should think Einstein: "If you do the same every day and expect different results, that's the definition of insanity."
Margie| 9.13.10 @ 1:11PM
Yes, proving once again that Liberalism, Socialism and it's brother Communism are indeed mental disorders!
scotchieguy| 9.13.10 @ 1:30PM
Or, another way of putting it, what part of having kids out of wedlock don't you understand?
RCV| 9.13.10 @ 7:04PM
Take that, Bristol Palin!
Bob Grant| 9.13.10 @ 8:39PM
Here's a challenge. How about 1 post without mentioning the Palin family. Wouldn't that be refreshing?
RCV| 9.14.10 @ 1:23PM
Oh, I forgot. We're only bringing Christian morality to the poor black folks.
wodiej| 9.13.10 @ 1:07PM
It's very simple-a poor person never gave anyone a job. Capitalism for better or worse is the only way to keep people working. The gov't hand outs are just enabling many, not all, people to do nothing to improve their lives.
The average person cannot spend more money than they take in because they will either end up filing bankruptcy or have to pay it back. The gov't should not be doing this either. Every expenditure should be accompanied by a spending cut.
JP| 9.13.10 @ 2:45PM
Vtwin,
You do have a strange idea about income redistribution. Supply side economics pertain to taxes. By definition the "property classes" generate larger incomes. How on earth can the "rich" benefit from income redistribution when by definition they have much greater assets (ie more money)? And when you take into account that the lower income earners pay no income taxes (most receive quite generous Earned Income Credits), your thesis blows up. Especially when one takes into account that the top 10% of incomes pay 65% of all income taxes.
If you would insert Marxists phraseology for your rants concerning Supply Side your thesis would at least be debatable. That is, if you said, "The rich make thier immoral profits off the toils of the poor," we could have a debate.
skip| 9.13.10 @ 6:57PM
Actually, taxfoundation.org as of 2007 has top 10% at 71.22% of all income tax revenue. And the top 1% paid more than the bottom 95% (40.42& to 39.37%). Wonder what vtwin would make of this, those damn rich just don't pay their fair share?
CalMark| 9.13.10 @ 2:51PM
The majority of our "poor" suffer terribly. Their lives are filled with things like automobiles, cell phones (often very expensive ones, as the someone in a soup line caught snapping a photo of Michelle Obama on his top-of-the-line phone) , air conditioning, heated residences, microwave ovens, hot and cold running water on demand.
Bottom line: our so-called "poor" live better than the upper middle class in most of the rest of the world.
dw| 9.13.10 @ 3:13PM
The middle class in this country are millionaires compared to most of the rest of the world.
That standard is at risk with obama the socialist.
We have thrown trillions of dollars at the impossible delusion that poverty can be eliminated. The best we can ever do for the masses is to provide policies that allow a vibrant economy and thus opportunity for people to pull themselves out of poverty. Communism lowers all boats while a supply side, free market, competitive market gives us the best chance at raising the less abled out of the cycle of poverty.
These people who want to create a central authority to combat social inequities do that to gain power for themselves as they truly believe in their own supremacy.
Oldefarte| 9.13.10 @ 3:05PM
It's called communism, socialism, Marzism, statism, or whatever; and involves a robfromtherichtogivetothepoor mentality. It has not been successful in Russia, Cuba, Latin America, Europe or anywhere else [and it never will be]. All men/women are BORN EQUAL, and if laws/educational systems are adequate, all have an EQUAL CHANCE IN LIFE OF SUCCESS. Whether or not everyone takes advantage of the opportunities are up to each person as individuals. If one wishes to [bury his ten talents instead of using same as the Bible says] work hard, then success will eventually come to that person. If alternatively, one wishes to hang out on the street corner, do drugs, commit crimes,etc; then their cry of racism, disenfranchisement, discrimination, gentrification,etc should be completely ignored. It survival of the fitest, and only the strong survive [or as Andy Griffith once exclaimed in WHAT IT WAS WAS FOOTBALL.......THE OBJECT OF THIS GAME IS TO GO FROM ONE OF THIS COW PASTURE TO THE OTHER WITHOUT EITHER GETTING KNOCKED DOWN, OR STEPPING IN SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FLOYD KRAUTNER| 9.15.10 @ 9:36AM
How on earth can the "rich" benefit from income redistribution when by definition they have much greater assets (ie more money)? And when you take into account that the lower income earners pay no income taxes (most receive quite generous Earned Income Credits), your thesis blows up. Especially when one takes into account that the top 10% of incomes pay 65% of all income taxes.
First off the upper 10% OWN more than 90% of everything! What's their beef about contributing to the system that makes their wealth possible?
The Bush tax cuts for the rich transfered a huge chunk of assets etc to the super rich.
You guys remind me of the old saying "When the poor give to the rich, the Devil laughs!"
FLOYD KRAUTNER| 9.15.10 @ 9:45AM
It's called communism, socialism, Marzism, statism, or whatever.......... It has not been successful in Russia, Cuba, Latin America, Europe or anywhere else [and it never will be].
Socialism appears to work well in Denmark. People there get full medical care, 6 weeks of vacation and do not face the grinding poverty often found in capitalist countries.
In Denmark, at least, Socialism seems to be working well.
Bill| 9.13.10 @ 3:10PM
Actually, if the Dems persist in raising taxes on my business (S corp, so tax increase on individual=business tax increase) the effect on employment will be negative. We have not cut payroll to date even though demand is down, in anticipation of a rebound, but if taxes go up I suspect there will be no rebound, and cutting payroll will finance Mr Obama's tax increase. When will the "progressives" get it, you don't make poorer folks wealthire by making wealthier folks poorer ????
dw| 9.13.10 @ 3:24PM
And for people like vtwib, who honestly is about as ignorant as a person can be, Reagan supply side worked but unfortunately the democratic congress spent $1.83 for every $1.00 taken in.
Congress must be given some sort of limits on what and how they spend our money and limits on the levels they can tax. To not at least have a requirement for a balanced budget is crazy.
And BTW, where is the democrat budget that was due months ago. If a republican congress didn't provide a budget we would never hear the end of it from the so called media watch dogs. It is just another example of the arrogance of dictatorship they rule from. They know they can operate in the dark because the press has been bought. Shame on the people who call themselves objective journalist.
Pat| 9.13.10 @ 3:51PM
Are you now considered “rich” but don’t remember buying a lottery ticket? You too could be one of those taxpayers recently “defined up” by the Democrats’ tax proposals in order to pay for those expensive stimulus packages which should start working any day now. And, by a strange coincidence, those who remain “poor” under the Democrats’ tax proposals exactly parallel the population demographics of those folks most likely to vote Democrat come November.
However, it would be wrong to claim all Democrats are poor by definition. What would be accurate is to note Democrats start out poor but frequently grow rich through selfless service to their country. Just recently, Bill and Hillary Clinton's tax accountant along with their tax lawyer were indicted for promoting tax fraud, and not just petty cheating either, but for concealing over one billion dollars in unreported taxable income related to their various clients. Like many Democrats currently or formerly in government service, Bill and Hil find themselves embarrassingly rich. When they started out, Bill pulled down a mere 20 grand a year as governor of Arkansas. And Hillary had to peddle her husband’s influence as governor in exchange for tips on trading in cattle futures. But through hard work on behalf of our nation, they grew rich, their daughter had to suffer through an immensely expensive wedding plus Bill’s royalties from book sales and $100,000 a pop speaking fees further added to their
embarrassment.
And Obama and Michelle will likewise have to suffer along with Bill and Hil once he leaves office – book royalties, speaking engagements and nominations to highly paid positions on the boards of various foundations will force the Obamas into the highest tax brackets. Quite an accomplishment for a guy who started out as a lowly community organizer and then worked his way up through Democratic Party ranks and elected positions. But, thankfully, Obama never had to toil in private industry, grubbing for money in the marketplace. No, he will have made his fortune the honorable way through a lifetime of government service – we should all be so selfless.
A. Murray Kahn| 9.13.10 @ 4:25PM
Yep. You sacrifice everything in a life of public service so you can give your daughter a 3 million dollar wedding and make (by some estimates) 100 million in speaking fees. No greed there. Nothing to see. Move along folks. Now about those dammed industrialists who actually provided goods and services ...
Pete| 9.13.10 @ 5:41PM
It is maddening that these elitist sacks of feces are allowed to play the class card. Osama is already so adept and playing to mainstream media outlets that once out of office, though I have 150+ channels, it may be difficult to avoid him. As soon as he is out of office, there will be at least several years of him talking about how the world wasn't ready for such a "transformational" leader. It would be funny if he hadn't already done so much damage.
Occam's Tool| 9.13.10 @ 10:31PM
I lived in New Zealand for 14 months. Folks, things cost 4 times there what they do here overall. Things are cheap and good in the USA. Obama wants to change that.
Redstateboy| 9.13.10 @ 5:27PM
Willful Ignorance?? The Man was a Community Organizer!!! What other conduct could you expect?! It's race war or it's class war but it's all agitation! He has No ideas.. His "experience" has been all hypothetical.. or lofty intellectual.. but I dare any Liber-ul lemming syncophant to point to ANY actual world experience he came to office with tangible proof of actually accomplishing anything.
FLOYD KRAUTNER| 9.15.10 @ 10:10AM
Your guy Bush II was unwillfully ignorant. He wanted to be smart but him and Cheney just couldn't muster the brain power to do anything but rip the country off for trillions.
Where was Bush's list of qualifications. Bush is the worst President in history and you have the nerve to criticize someone who is forced to spend most of his time repairing the recession creating policies set up by Bush II.
If you want more of Bush II, I'd be glad to give you all you can swallow, if I could get off the bus and watch you crash and burn.
Yosemeti Sam| 9.14.10 @ 1:19AM
" ... President Obama recently decided that the answer was to hit the road and throw some anti-rich red meat...."
Um - just what is BHOs' net worth nowadays and what kings ransom would he enjoy prospectively after being booted out of office in 2012?
Miss Dee| 9.16.10 @ 3:13PM
When the president makes this statement, it makes me wonder IF he even knows the history of the USA. From his actions, I would guess NO!
"they just haven't studied our history."
KCH| 9.16.10 @ 6:00PM
Wow!... It's my first look here. A well-known, liberal, personality has observed that of the (voluminous) hate-mail he receives, he knows that most of it is from Christians since they always quote chapter and verse. Similarly, it seems I can usually correctly guess whether a political site is liberal or conservative since there's so much more ad hominem value-judgement or invective expressed in the latter. "Your arguments are always worded differently than the actual topic that we are discussing."; "Every time you throw out a link and some statistics they happen to be the wrong statistics."; "he parrots such offerings"; "If you weren't such a "useful idiot" "; "this lefty troll"; "lay their vicious mits on"; "You spout the exact opposite..."; "You ignorant loser." [love that one!: so original]; "You're obviously a shill for the Sarah Palin camp" [uh,oh!...should have that one out; clearly from a liberal.]; "you are nothing but a Clinton suck up troll."; "Your political philosophy is bankrupt"; "what a bunch of crap..". No doubt I missed a few and why have I wasted my time on this, I ask (rhetorical question; don't trouble to answer).
FLOYD KRAUTNER| 9.23.10 @ 8:04AM
RE: Dems vs Repubs Economy etc
Meg Whitman's lying campaign has brought one fact to the front— Jerry Brown did NOT raise taxes or increase the deficit as California Governor.
The tax increase and deficit spending actually occurred under Gov. Reagan's administration.
According to news reports, Clinton produced more than 7 times as many jobs as Bush. Clinton also produced a surplus while Bush ran up the national debt exponentially.
The advertised economic concerns of Republicans are always handled better under Democrats and without the massive negative consequences.
jacky | 3.20.11 @ 6:03AM
I was in a McDonalds a while ago