-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 86 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
A Further Perspective
E.J.’s Broken Record
We’re not broke. The rich simply aren’t paying enough in taxes. Over to you, Al Franken.
E.J. Dionne’s “What, me worry?“ opinion of America’s federal and state budget problems should frighten anyone who has had the misfortune to prosper through hard work or wise investment. Arguing that those who claim “we’re broke” are crying wolf, Dionne uses economic idiocy and moral travesty to aid those whose goal is to keep as much taxpayer money as possible flowing through the grasping hands of government, the long-term consequences be damned.
Imagine a man, the breadwinner for his family, who loses his job. He has enough in savings to cover his mortgage, country club membership, utilities, food, and payments on four cars for three months. Is he broke today? No. Is he about to be broke if he doesn’t dump the country club membership and two of his cars, and start eating at cheaper restaurants, at least until he gets a new, and hopefully stable, job? Absolutely.
Under Dionne’s analysis, however, that man is fine because someone else hasn’t lost his job. It’s the same thinking a mugger might have.
According to his analysis, Wisconsin isn’t broke because “employees and bills are being paid” and the U.S. isn’t broke because it can still borrow money at low interest rates. Dionne is whistling past the graveyard of government budgets, bringing out the Keynesian and Progressive zombies there entombed.
The U.S. can borrow at low interest rates because the Federal Reserve is spending the better part of a trillion dollars in “QE II” to “flatten the yield curve” (causing long-term interest rates to drop so the spread between long and short rates narrows, thus forcing investors to take more risk rather than save money or buy bonds.) And that’s on top of a couple trillion more the government has forced into the financial system in the past two years. Those actions are exacerbating the consistent weakening trend of the U.S. dollar over the past couple of years, risking inflation and lessening the wealth of all Americans in a way that most, who don’t think about currency rates daily — or even yearly — don’t recognize.
The federal government can get away with these damaging shenanigans because it can print money and cover up its mistakes by taking more of your (or your child’s future) paycheck. In that sense, the federal government won’t technically go broke — but it can sure seem like it has when exploding entitlements and interest payments consume 100% of tax revenue — projected to happen within 30-40 years if we don’t reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This will leave Big Brother to borrow all the money needed for national defense, infrastructure, and politicians’ undying love of bridges and highways with their names on them.
That borrowing means nothing more than taxes to be imposed on our children and grandchildren once the current scoundrels are safely in retirement after having hooked the nation on the narcotic of “free money” and scurrying away once their supply (of other people’s money) dries up.
States are in a different situation. They can’t print money and generally must balance their budgets. When Wisconsin expects a $3.6 billion budget deficit over two years, it must be closed by spending cuts, entitlement reforms, and revenue increases. Entitlement reforms are needed most, with one analysis suggesting that half of the state’s budget deficit is due to the cost of Medicaid.
But, Dionne and his Progressive fellow travelers see tax hikes and “soaking the rich” as the only policy change needed to solve all our fiscal ills. Dionne approvingly quotes comedian-turned-political-joke Al Franken’s description of the income growth of America’s top earners as “unbelievable” and concludes that governments are not broke because “some people are definitely not broke.” What’s yours is mine, after all.
The left’s inclination to make our income tax system even more “progressive,” which is to say even more punitive of success, ignores several key facts:
First, the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush gave our nation its most “progressive” tax system in modern American history, with the share of taxes paid by the top 1% going from under 34% in 2001 to over 40% in 2007, before dropping to 38% in 2008. (The economic turmoil of 2008 and 2009 hit the taxable incomes of upper earnings in the reverse of the prior years’ growth of their incomes that Franken and Dionne bemoan. I wonder if they feel better now that the rich are less rich.) The top 5%, earning about $160,000 a year or more, pay about 59% of all federal income taxes, up from 53% in 2001. And the bottom 50%’s share of income tax payments has fallen from 4% to 2.7%.
Second, “Hauser’s Law” suggests — though not without skeptics — that the share of GDP which the government can collect in tax revenue falls within a narrow band centered roughly around 19% for the past three decades. So, similar to the Laffer Curve’s concept of a revenue-maximizing tax rate, Hauser’s Law posits that raising tax rates won’t substantially increase tax revenue.
Third, and related to Hauser’s Law, is the fact that, as Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute notes, “squeezing…a tiny sliver of taxpayers who already pay more than half of all individual taxes…won’t work. It never works.” Reynolds goes on to explain that “successful people are not docile sheep just waiting to be shorn” and how the non-sheep can and do change their investment and income structures to avoid punitively high tax rates.
Fourth, as President Obama’s recent chief economic advisor, Christina Romer, showed in a paper she wrote with her husband, “tax increases have a large, rapid, and highly statistically significant negative effect on output.” More specifically, “Our baseline specification suggests that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly three percent.” To be fair, the Romers argue that tax hikes implemented to lower a deficit have less negative economic consequences. However, history shows that tax hikes implemented to cut deficits inevitably lead to higher spending and higher future deficits. Thus, financial markets and entrepreneurs’ “animal spirits” will not react to any tax hike as if it will actually reduce the deficit.
Fifth, every bit of economic history, including our own nation’s recent self-destructive spending binge, suggests that the “multiplier” on government spending is less than one. In other words, every dollar that the federal government spends raises GDP by less than $1 because that money was taken from the private sector where it would have been more productive. Many studies by “Chicago” or “Austrian”-school economists suggest the multiplier is a substantially negative number, with the most anti-Keynesian report claiming that $1 of government spending reduces GDP by $3.40.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (88) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/18/ejs-broken-record
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
figusja| 3.18.11 @ 7:34AM
I grew up in NYC and in the projects. I went in the Navy and I make good money. I am now in the top 25% of income earners. That just surprised me. How is it that i pulled myself up by my bootstraps, now I have to hand over more of my money to pay for all the lazy generational welfare families in my old neighbourhood.
Yes there are a bunch of lazy SOB's over in my old town. I can give you family names right of the top of my head. They are still outside watching us stupid working stiffs go to work and come back from work everyday. And they wear more gold on there necks than I have in investments. 200 hundred dollar speakersm, latest fashion clothing and eat out everyday. Should I be resentful.........NAAAAAHHHHH!
Grzmlyk| 3.18.11 @ 10:30AM
Well, figusa, a liberal would tell you you're a greedy, selfish hater.
Because in the liberal world view, people aren't real, flesh-and-blood, human beings encompassing the full spectrum of human traits - some are good, nany are bad, some are honest, many are not, some are industrious, many are lazy, some sieze opportunity, many choose to be passive victims. Real human beings run the gamut; some deserve more than others because they've worked for it or created something that improves the lot of their fellow man. Some deserve less because they have contributed nothing to their fellow man.
No, in the liberal world view, there are no people - there are only oppressed classes. Abstractions. Theoretical entities. And these abstractions are ipso facto "good," and therefore deserving of your money.
The fact is, many, many people in this country don't deserve one thin dime because they won't get up off of their asses or else they already have plenty - they just want more freebies.
The other fact is that government cannot create wealth, cannot change human nature and cannot even, in any fundamental sense, redistribute human capability or productivity. All it can do is loot the wealth created by real human beings and use it to benefit its ruling elites with lavish lifestyles they haven't earned and with bribes to constituents who will keep them in power.
Exactly like a cancer, the only thing the weflare state can do is rob the healthy tissue of nutrients and metastasize, eventually overrunning the healthy tissue and killing itself as well as its host.
The sole purpose of our government now is to divide up booty among people who have been granted disproportionate political power.
Our government is one giant, corrupt, thieving cesspool, and EJ Dionne is either a hopelessly foolish and vainglorious intellectual fop, or else he is part of the kleptocracy and is cynically living large off of what he knows damned well are lies.
Mel Torme| 3.18.11 @ 3:10PM
Grzmlyk, that was one of the best comments ever. Many people who have a little bit of life experience and are honest with themselves have thought these things, but you put them down like nobody else (including the Spectator writers).
Nice job! Some people, such as this Dionne asshole, just don't want to open their eyes.
Redstateboy| 3.18.11 @ 3:25PM
I agree with you Grzmlyk and I'd add.. when does "helping" people transfer to hurting them?
Liber-ulism has got us "helping" people to death!
If we could just Gut it up and observe what the Good Book says (to the abled bodied) "You don't work - You don't eat."
Purpleguy| 3.19.11 @ 4:58AM
Try this on for size, which is a much more central tenet of the Bible - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ... never ceases to amaze me how many of you NEVER think you could be in dire straits .. too bad we didn't have another Depression to teach you all that lesson. Sad, very sad.
missbosslady| 3.19.11 @ 12:25PM
purpleguy,
Ah the depth of your misunderstanding!
Try this on for size; I would NEVER have anyone do unto me what I could do unto myself, therefore I reciprocate in kind. Hence, I am an obvious observant of the Golden Rule.
That's the part that you pathetic lefties don't get.
It's your premise that is the problem.
Koblog| 3.19.11 @ 4:09PM
Purpleguy, the Bible also instructs us that "the laborer is worthy of his wages" and "if a man will not work, neither should he eat."
Liberalism states, "tax (steal from) the laborer and give it to the one who will not work."
The result is bankruptcy for both.
beebop| 3.20.11 @ 3:36PM
Honey?
I worked three part time jobs, took in a boarder and pulled money out of savings. Don't freaking condescend to me you little punk. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Mitch Angoop| 3.18.11 @ 6:40PM
Today, one of the dems pet judges put a 'stay' on the legally passed law in Wisconsin breaking the public employee unions. Once again, the dems laughed at the rule of law and thumbed their noses at the elective process. Every day that these sub-human pieces of excrement keep up their mindless assault on the American people is one day closer to armed rebellion or the final death of America. We are down to that start choice, thanks to them. There is no way any miserable lying turd democrats can talk about democracy or bipartisanship. These people are lying thugs that will be physically destroyed in a war of their own doing.
The left/dems/libs (pick one) are sneaky and devious. We are long past any attempts to get rid of them through the elective and legislative process. Besides, they just break the law with impunity and laugh at us when we call 'foul'!
Time for talking and hand wringing is long past. These people are incapable of realizing that Americans have had it and it will take just one spark to set it off. When the blood flows, as the dems themselves have advocated, they will be out manned and out gunned. In their blood and agony, they will finally understand that they have nobody to blame but themselves; for it is they who have already fired the first shots; in Tucson, Madison, Columbus, and countless other places in our 'once great' Country.
Purpleguy| 3.19.11 @ 6:04AM
Legally - that's a joke, right? They didn't observe the 24 hour rule and broke their own law ... dumbbells
emo| 3.19.11 @ 11:19AM
The Senate can set its own rules. It is a violation of the separation of powers for courts to rule on the rules the Senate sets for itself. It is a Senate rule, not a state law or written in the constitution
beebop| 3.20.11 @ 3:38PM
I'm trying to remember exactly how it went .... was that before or after 15 dims left the state and neglected their responsibilities just because they didn't want to have to vote? hmmmmmm
paul| 3.20.11 @ 8:48AM
The true disgrace is the unconstitutional power grab, the unchecked greed and corruption of our "public servants," the threats to our freedom, and the arrogance, indecency, and incompetency of those who seek to banish anyone who has the integrity and courage to effectively articulate conservative syllogisms. I do believe that they are willing to destroy in order to win. However the basic problem for these liberals is that Americans are not instinctive losers.
michigander_sandusky| 3.18.11 @ 11:03PM
Great comment! Another Biblical reference is in order, "am I your enemy because I tell you the truth?" Most of American's don't want the truth.
GavInTucson| 3.19.11 @ 12:33AM
Grzmlyk| 3.18.11 @ 10:30AM wrote.
"Well, figusa, a liberal would tell you you're a greedy, selfish hater."
Actually, a lot of liberals would just simply say he got lucky. According to them, hard work coupled with success is some sort of accident.
beebop| 3.20.11 @ 3:34PM
EJ Dionne is either a hopelessly foolish and vainglorious intellectual fop, or else he is part of the kleptocracy and is cynically living large off of what he knows damned well are lies.
I would opine that it appears to be the latter. The liberal MSM is a contributing factor and EJ one of the biggest pom pom shakers.
Doctor Right| 3.18.11 @ 1:29PM
It's not their fault that you're uppity...
Alan Brooks| 3.18.11 @ 4:30PM
"The rich simply aren't paying enough in taxes."
A defense tax is the way to go- you will fork over the dough and you will like it too.
Alan Brooks| 3.18.11 @ 8:28PM
"I grew up in NYC and in the projects. I went in the Navy..."
The government helped you all the way.
GavInTucson| 3.19.11 @ 12:46AM
The military doesn't hire someone out of some philanthropic sense of altruism, Alan. It hires someone because they have a job they need filled. The military isn't interested in "helping" people out of their personal economic situations.
It's no different than the private sector, in this respect.
Government "help" is doling out money in exchange for nothing in return.
Alan Brooks| 3.19.11 @ 8:53PM
Still, he got a good deal in the projects and in the Service. BTW I don't think businessmen are any better than govt employees. The CEO is no less pernicious than the G1. All are liars, sang King David. And all have fallen short- let no man boast for our vanity is as filthy rags. The scripture does not say:
"the soul of the govt. employee is deceitfully wicked, but not the businessman. The businessman shall inherit the Earth and sit at the right hand of God. Amen."
Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 12:09AM
Please note that I am a mindless shithead and only post what I have been instructed to post.
Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 12:08AM
I'm not complaining, I have sucked at the governement tit all my life. Of course as an American, the government owes me and I certainly would never join the service as I am a coward and openly welcome my new islamic overlords.
Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 1:49AM
Visit my homepage: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.18.11 @ 7:39AM
You could seize all the assets of every rich person in America and it still wouldn't make a dent in the national deficit.
beebop| 3.20.11 @ 3:41PM
Wouldn't you think at some point the uber wealthy lefties would get scared of this class war the liberals are trying to stire up? What was it Madame du Barry said? "One moment more, Mr. Executioner, I beg you!" When the rabble starts to rob from the rich, they won't necessarily differentiate based upon voting record.
JP| 3.18.11 @ 7:44AM
Believe it or not, I think Ross understates the danger. Long before the federal government ever goes "broke" (technically it already is) our nation will be in tatters. Pimco, an instututional investor that is the largest holder of US T-bills, is taking a nod from Moody's and selling off its US bond holdings completely. This mirros the trends of the last several months in which commodities are suring in price. Long before the federal government realizes it cannot even service its debt, consumers will be hit with hyper inflation.
The only saving grace we have is that Europe and China appear to be in the same boat (China depends on excess US dollars to subsidize its imports of commodities and maintain double digit GDP growth). Essientially the entire global economy is addicted to the credit crack pipe. But, since the dollar is the reserve currency of the globe, a falling dollar exasperates everything. We're fortunate the Euro or Yen are not backed by healthy ledgers. Otherwise, those currencies would be safe harbors for investors.
I would say we're playing with fire. But we're well beyond the time for melodramtic cliches. We're in uncharted territory. If everything collapses currency wise,....well... use your imagination.
Len | 3.18.11 @ 11:39AM
What's this "if"?
Let' s help that imagination; the dollar is no longer the WRC -> no more money for entitlements + higher unemployment + more people needing to put food on the table + resentment toward the government and the well off = food shortages +rioting beyond what we have ever seen before.
Alan Brooks| 3.18.11 @ 10:45PM
You don't want to be in the ghetto when the welfare checks bounce.
missbosslady| 3.19.11 @ 12:30PM
I won't be.
Worked my ass off all of my life to stay out, that's how it's done.
When the welfare checks stop coming, and they burn their neighborhoods to the ground, and still the checks don't come, then they too will figure out that the way out of the ghetto is hard work.
figusja| 3.18.11 @ 7:48AM
Instead of Mutually Assured Nuclear Destruction. It will be Mutually Assured Economic Destruction. Right JP?
David W| 3.18.11 @ 8:57AM
Have Congress pass a law - anytime anyone says "to increase taxes on the rich" 50% of their wealth is automatically confiscated. Send the IRS to make a list of everything they have - house(s), car(s), jewels, stereos, TVs, etc., and have the IRS take 50% of it and sell it. Then we can see how many of these "doo gooders" (and I meant to use "doo") speak up about taxing the rich.
Here's a joke - how many rich liberals does it take to change a light bulb? Zero - rich liberals won't change lightbulbs. However, they will write a letter to Congress asking it to pass a law that will require all rich people to change lightbulbs.
Feel free to use that joke!!
Mel Torme| 3.18.11 @ 3:15PM
You forgot the part about the waivers, David. Just like with Obamacare, ya just got to have some waivers for some of the well intentioned doo-gooders who just happen to be rich (but not like those rich conservatives with their top hats and Rolls-Royces, lousy scum) /s
Alan Brooks| 3.18.11 @ 10:49PM
"Feel free to use that joke!!"
Without paying you royalties on it?- you must be slipping!
Here's one: how may rightwing libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?: one to call the other a 'statist', the other to smash the bulb and stalk out.
missbosslady| 3.19.11 @ 12:32PM
Sorry Alan, but 2 right wing libertarians would never discuss changing a light bulb.
One of them would just do it without comment.
Indiana Alex| 3.18.11 @ 9:00AM
I think the worst part about this nonsense is the representation, which as always with liberals, is no surprise at all. The talking points say "millionares and billionares" get their taxes cut, which is really not the proposal at all. Millionares and billionares really don't need much income, and can easily avoid confiscatory taxation. I don't think Buffet has payed himself more than $100,000 in many years, so here is a billionare that wouldn't be impacted by the $250,000 chalk line.
This mostly hurts people that are TRYING to become rich. Most people who would be hit with these tax increases would probably defer income, chosing to live on $249,999, and generally hiding the rest of their income in unproductive ways to avoid taxation.
This is where tax policy becomes very much counter productive. Of course if the real goal of this policy were to raise revenue, tax increases would have to be applied well below the $250,000 mark, as smart people realized long ago that the bulk of the Bush tax cuts, from the realm of total dollars went to those below the magic $250,000 mark.
The real goal is not budgetary, but "to spread the wealth around", as a historically insignificant figure once said.
The Bruce| 3.19.11 @ 1:18AM
This reminds me of a story that Ronald Reagan told many years ago. Now, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details -- again, I heard this story many years ago -- so I'm essentially paraphrasing. This was back when the "rich" payed a 90% income tax (thanks to FDR) and the middle class paid far lower (don't have the exact numbers).
The question was posed to Reagan as to why he only worked a few months out of the year. His answer went right to the point. He stated that if he worked/earned a day longer, it would put him into the "rich" tax bracket, resulting an a substantial confiscation of his income. To put it mildly, if he worked harder his net annual income would be much smaller.
The moral of the story is that a progressive tax system encourages less productivity.
Perhaps someone has a link to this little gem.
Petronius| 3.18.11 @ 9:19AM
To all and singular:
Your fair share is not in MY wallet!
squalis| 3.18.11 @ 9:29AM
Even if increasing tax rates resulted in increased revenues, who here thinks government spending will remain stable, let alone decrease? Raise your hands. Anyone?
coal carrier| 3.18.11 @ 10:26AM
You are correct. That is why there is a deficit of $1.5 Trillion in the present budget. It’s never enough for these politicians.
Impeach Don't Wait| 3.18.11 @ 11:51PM
You got it! It's never enough. There is never a point where liberals say "Now we're satisfied. The needs are met." They always find more and more needs. (And Republicans jump in and add to the damage too!) Policy and practice must change!
CharlieEcho| 3.18.11 @ 10:55AM
I agree that no matter what the income to the powers that be might increase that will only increase the spending. "We have all this money", I can hear it now. Like figusja above I too left home joined the military and established myself. Though, I lived in a small town in rural America. I too look at the "old neighborhood" and can point out the career "welfare families". These people manage to find someone to believe they can not make it on their own. That's can not, as opposed to will not.
Another thing is our elected. While in Illinois they did, last time "vote" not to accept a pay raise they have not changed any laws to prevent an automatic raise in the future. Our elected slew the figures and facts to hide or steal money from the uninformed tax payers. We must continue the hue and cry until our voters become informed and demand changes. Republican or Democrat, once entrenched they are emboldened to strengthen their hold on power. We have to change that boldness, they should work for us.
derotique| 3.18.11 @ 11:26AM
I've never understood why taxpayers find it "fair" to have a progressive tax system. How can it be justified that some people pay more, some less, and many pay nothing. There are 2 good alternatives. First: either the FairTax or flat tax. Second: only those who are paying or have paid taxes can vote.
Pete| 3.18.11 @ 11:31AM
That would be perfect and would undermine the entire Democrat strategy of making the majority of Americans dependent on government so they can rule in perpetuity.
RichTex| 3.18.11 @ 12:10PM
What we need is a Supreme Court decision holding that a progessive tax system (i.e., taxing some people at a greater percentage than others) violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Tim T. | 3.18.11 @ 12:36PM
@RichTex, the language of the 16th Amendment specifically removes the barrier to progressive taxation. Previously, taxation was constitutionally required to be on a "per head" basis. I think we'll never see a Supreme Court decision of the type you're hoping for as long as the 16th is in place (unamended).
talkradio55| 3.18.11 @ 2:26PM
The FairTax is the answer. Of course that would completely destroy the Democrats and make them go by the way of the Whigs.
Herman Cain in 2012 (the only candidate who is on record as a proponent of the FairTax).
RichTex| 3.18.11 @ 3:21PM
The 16th Amendment merely says that taxes may be levied on income without apportionment among the States and without regard to any census or enumeration. It doesn’t say that individuals may be treated differently due to their respective income levels.
Stan Redmond| 3.19.11 @ 9:50AM
National sales tax or other consumption tax. Then EVERYONE has a stake in the country. The uber-rich with no incomes down to the lowliest welfare queen all pay taxes.
John | 3.18.11 @ 11:54AM
Our imaginary breadwinner is not broke. If he has several credit cards, its time to take a Caribbean cruise. After all welfare recipients have apparently been using their welfare cards during their cruises. They have cell phones and gold teeth, and those manicures, they're not cheap. He feels bad about that job thing so why not live it up a little. President Obama informed Joe the plumber that his plan was not to increase revenue but to redistribute wealth. Let's all go down the toilet together. It's only fair.
Tim T. | 3.18.11 @ 12:38PM
Also, @John, in keeping with Dionne's analogy: Our imaginary breadwinner keeps getting credit card offers in the mail -- further proof that he's not broke.
Richard Baker| 3.18.11 @ 1:34PM
I'd ask Dionne what his net worth is and how much value has his portfolio lost? I honestly believe that these lefties think that this economic destruction and turmoil won't affect them in some sort of Alice in Wonderland mental state. These people are lucid?
Kishego| 3.18.11 @ 3:43PM
Lucid !! I hardly think so, my grandson can offer a more cogent argument on most given topics than these dhimmiwits. I will give the usefull idiots like E.J. credit for one thing though, they are consistent. Consistently wrong time and again.
missbosslady| 3.19.11 @ 12:38PM
Better yet Richard, ask Dionne how much of his net worth he currently "gives away" and how much more he is willing to part with.
All the Dionnites need to first give away all income in excess of the national average, then they can preach to the rest of us to do the same.
In the meantime....ST*U!
JimmyT| 3.18.11 @ 2:41PM
If the Buffets of this world "feel" like their not paying enough in taxes, then THEY should pay more. If they're smart enough to amass these fortunes, then surely they're smart enough to know that the IRS will accept checks for additional funds. The IRS might even send them a "thank you" note.
Kishego| 3.18.11 @ 3:49PM
Is it not amazing that you NEVER here these a$$bags get asked a question about that. That's always my first thought, "How much extra do you pay above the required minmum" ? "If you feel the tax rates aren't high enough, what percentage of your WEALTH (not income) do you donate to the Government"? It would be refreshing to hear wouldn't it?
CalMark| 3.18.11 @ 4:56PM
EXACTLY!
If McCain wasn't such a wimp, he could have asked Obama during a debate whose tax tables (Clinton's or Bush's) he used for his millions from ghostwritten books? We know what the answer is. Hand him a generic check--and demand right there, right then, to give the Federal Government the difference. And if he complied, ask him why it took an ambush on National TV for him to do the "patriotic" (according to his running mate) thing.
In the name of Fairness and Social Justice and stuff.
Torstin| 3.18.11 @ 3:10PM
It is the same as the stupid old notion - "We can't be broke because there are still checks in the checkbook!" Sorry if a repeat of another post - did not read them all.
Best to non-liberals.
Lee Schafer| 3.18.11 @ 4:46PM
Does Mr. Dionne not know that a 100% tax on all revunues over $250,000 would not even come close to solving our debt problems in America. When I see all the really rich leftist in the country, like George Soros, Warren Buffet, 90% of Hollywood, 99.9% of the elite news media like E.J. Dionne say we are going to voluntarily give our entire fortunes, earnings, assets over to the government because we really and truly believe that the government show get every dime I make, then I will view then as something other than out right liars, charlatans, and stupid idiots. Until then keep your ##$$%#@$%^&*(*^%^$## HANDS OFF MY MONEY.
CalMark| 3.18.11 @ 4:52PM
And E.J. Dionne, Great Thinker and Famous Columnist, is of course one of the put-upon average folks who makes $45,000 a year and can barely make do after government takes its cut.
Or else (as usual) draconian redistribution rules don't apply to the enlightened elites. "Some animals," as Orwell presciently said, "are more equal than others."
CalMark| 3.18.11 @ 4:50PM
In the Weimar Republic (pre-Hitler Germany) inflation got so bad that currency values changed hourly. It took literally a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. Crushing debt--in Germany's case, war reparations under impossible terms--leads to extreme results. We're heading down that road.
In less than four years, Obama could well undo what it took 15 generations to create. If nothing else, hopefully the liberals and their servants (media, academia, etc.) will pay a very dear price for their perfidy, and become a tiny, reviled minority while America rebuilds itself.
Mimi| 3.18.11 @ 8:14PM
" Inless than four years,, obama could well undo what it took 15 generations to create."
CAL... that one sentence was....PROFOUND !!!
Media, Liberals, Academia..TAKE NOTE !!! .....and yes you will be a reviled minority
Occam's Tool| 3.18.11 @ 6:07PM
To Al Franken:
"They say that you will always be the last to know,
they say that all that glitters is not gold,
it's not just that your never coming back to me,
it's the bitter way that I was told.
And I'm up while the dawn is breaking,
even though my heart is aching,
I should be drinking a toast to absent friends,
instead of these Comedians."
Yes, Roy Orbison was the greatest.
Occam's Tool| 3.18.11 @ 6:08PM
Sorry, "you're never coming back to me."
John Carnal| 3.18.11 @ 9:49PM
If journalistic reputation were trousers every day the Washington Post publishes an E. J. Dionne piece is another day it publicly soils its trousers.
Son of Liberty| 3.18.11 @ 10:15PM
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past year or two, real inflation is already here. You just need to go to the gas pump or grocery store. In fact, it may have just gone into hyperdrive. Last month food prices rose about 3.4%. Gasoline was up a little over 1%. Those are annualized rates of 40% and 12% respectively. It was the largest one month food price increase in three decades. Of course, the fed conveniently does not include these in the "core" inflation numbers, probably because both items are only totally necessary for us to conduct our daily lives. Thank you Progressives, Bernanke and QE2.
As for E.J. Dionne; I put him in the same category as Michael Moore and other Progressives. They probably represent the most people on the "rich" list, especially the "filthy rich". Yet you never hear about them putting up their own money to address these "revenue" issues. Or, for that matter, to provide charitable donation for any truly worthy cause. It's always about getting those "other people's" money (I assume the "other" means conservatives). That leads me to believe that under any of their tax proposals there will be a "means" test that will probably be directly tied to your voting record.
Dee See| 3.19.11 @ 3:44AM
IF you haven't already, or if, with all the
counter-programming ops filling the media,
you've forgotten it, DO STUDY
'The Money Masters'
(documentary on Youtube)
AS Japan burns in still another Globalist
'friendly' unprecedented, and uncannily timed
'event' ----you'll rediscover the Ground Zero source of evil, The Federal Reserve.
CHECK IT OUT --------AGAIN
emo| 3.19.11 @ 11:16AM
It seems that the left's new argument (coming originally from Michael Moore), is that deficits dont really matter and we arent broke. One can only hope they are stupid enough to go into the 2012 elections with that strategy
Speedypete| 3.19.11 @ 9:09PM
What Senator Franken is not telling you is the rich he is referring to are not the power brokers with billions, it is the successful businessmen, doctors and other professionals like bankers and lawyers that make maybe a million/year but don't have the team of lawyers and accountants to confound the IRS like the ultra wealthy that create and support his pak money. As one Minneapolis friend puts it, Minnesota would never select the artist Prince to run for high office. They don't select great musicians and entertainers, just fake wrestlers and bad comedians.
Speedypete| 3.19.11 @ 9:09PM
What Senator Franken is not telling you is the rich he is referring to are not the power brokers with billions, it is the successful businessmen, doctors and other professionals like bankers and lawyers that make maybe a million/year but don't have the team of lawyers and accountants to confound the IRS like the ultra wealthy that create and support his pak money. As one Minneapolis friend puts it, Minnesota would never select the artist Prince to run for high office. They don't select great musicians and entertainers, just fake wrestlers and bad comedians.
Marc Jeric| 3.19.11 @ 10:13PM
Komrad Dionne never disappoints - well, he is a confirmed commie. This former refugee from a communist hell can write exactly like Dionne on any subject you want - just tell me the theme and I will write you exactly what the Moscow Pravda would have written some 25 years ago - before the demise of that mass-murdering terrorist regime was thrown into the garbage heat of history (thanks, RR!). Well - you cannot teach an old dog new tricks, not if it is komrad Dionne.
Howard| 3.20.11 @ 12:56PM
This is based on logic. However, when dealing with Liberals, you must forget logic. Most wealthy liberals in fact believe they are under taxed. I'm sure Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Barbara Streisand would in theory pay 90% of their income in taxes. And eventually continuing Obama's policies to their "logical" conclusion, the future will hold a small percentage of rich, Liberal nitwits gladly forking over most of their wealth to subsidize a nation of "victims" and freeloaders. The ultimate Greek analogy.
Christopher Holland| 3.20.11 @ 9:21PM
Name one country that taxed its way to prosperity. And when you have the answer to that one, you can tell me why the Soviet Union and all its satellites collapsed- after all, that was supposed to show how capitalism failed and socialism worked.
Secryn | 3.21.11 @ 4:48PM
Clearly, people will change their behavior, often dramatically, to avoid paying taxes. Thus we must impose high taxes on the unemployed, the welfare recipients, and the poor in general. Their hatred of taxes will overcome their uneasy acceptance of a system that "keeps" them as long as they don't work. Or we could just reduce their welfare payments as a kind of withholding tax. Only when they find an actual job, which some private citizen or business is willing to pay them to do, could they escape this tax. No sweat. Next problem please.
Jack London| 3.21.11 @ 4:55PM
Does there come a point where even you far right folk think wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few people? Bear in mind that today about 20% of Americans now own 85% of wealth. The top 1% owns about 43%. This has been getting worse (or better from your standpoint) since Reagan.
voted against carter| 3.21.11 @ 9:44PM
UNION SOLUTION:
it was the same as it always is:
Tax the rich.
“Let the big shots pay!”
Members of public sector unions see their pensions and benefits
the way the Mafia views its “partnership” with a restaurant,
as described in the movie “Goodfellas”:
“Business bad? F–k you, pay me.
Oh, you had a fire? F–k you, pay me.
Place got hit by lightning, huh? F–k you, pay me.”
Spoiler alert:
When the restaurant owner is unable to pay his mob tribute,
they burn the place to the ground.
But government employees aren’t exactly like the mob.
At least the Mafia guys have a strong work ethic.
Cynthia| 3.28.11 @ 1:42PM
Well, first, where are you getting your percentages? I see this used all the time, but never see WHERE the numbers come from. You answer me, and I'll answer you...If you give me a good reason why those numbers are correct.
Bruce Berger| 3.21.11 @ 9:19PM
Jack,
In your infinite wisdom, how much wealth should any of us have?
Jack London| 3.22.11 @ 11:10AM
Why don't you answer the questions I put first.
voted against carter| 3.21.11 @ 9:40PM
I found this some on the internet some place and it pretty much sums it up.
UNION SOLUTION:
it was the same as it always is:
Tax the rich.
“Let the big shots pay!” Wurf said.
Embodying the hopes and dreams of our Founding Fathers,
Wurf said organizing government employees was part of his goal to
“remake the economic and political system” in line with
the vision of socialist Norman Thomas and the Young People’s Socialist League.
Members of public sector unions see their pensions and benefits
the way the Mafia views its “partnership” with a restaurant,
as described in the movie “Goodfellas”:
“Business bad? F–k you, pay me.
Oh, you had a fire? F–k you, pay me.
Place got hit by lightning, huh? F–k you, pay me.”
Spoiler alert:
When the restaurant owner is unable to pay his mob tribute,
they burn the place to the ground.
But government employees aren’t exactly like the mob.
At least the Mafia guys have a strong work ethic.
chris mahoney| 4.2.11 @ 4:23PM
The top 10% pay 80% of taxes but have only 10% of the vote. There is no reason why the other 90% shouldn't try confiscate their money via taxation. Before this is all over, entitlements will be means-tested, tax rates on the "rich" will be higher, and there will be an annual wealth tax.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:40AM
Imagine a man, the breadwinner for his family, who loses his job. He has enough in savings to cover his mortgage, country club membership, utilities, food, and payments on four cars for three months. Is he broke today? No.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:47PM
is good