-
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 | 227 comments
-
The Pigs of Pigford
April 30, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Overstating Boston
April 26, 2013 | 143 comments
Special Report
No, YOU Didn’t Build That!
The truth is the opposite of what our campaigner-in chief claims.
Speaking in Roanoke, Virginia, on July 13, President Barack Obama famously uttered the words that may come to define him and the 2012 presidential campaign: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
The truth is the opposite: It is government that is utterly dependent on the private sector, in fact on a small highly-productive subset of the private sector, for its ability to do anything.
Obama says entrepreneurs should be fawningly grateful to government (and implicitly to him) for teachers, roads, bridges, and the Internet. But who paid for that teacher, that infrastructure, and that scientific research?
The answer is not “taxpayers” and certainly not “all of us” but rather “a very small percentage of Americans.”
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently released a study on income and tax distribution for the years 2008 and 2009. The imbalance between incomes earned and taxes paid is dramatic — in exactly the opposite way from the claims of President Obama and his supporters. The funding of our government embodies, as Mart Laar so eloquently put it (in remarks I highly recommend you watch), the “grand idea of Karl Marx.”
(“Income distribution” is itself a misleading term, implying that the economy “distributes” a fixed amount of income, like your mother deciding who at the table gets how big a slice of the cherry pie. But wealth is created, not distributed, when people provide goods or services that the purchasers value more than the money they part with to receive them. Outside of monopoly or near-monopoly situations, both parties to a transaction believe themselves better off, which is why we do not get richer by making other people poorer, but rather by making other people richer, happier, healthier, and more productive.)
In 2009, the highest quintile (top 20 percent) of earners, with household incomes over $223,500 before taxes, took in 51 percent of the nation’s income but paid 68 percent of all individual federal taxes. The middle quintile — the oppressed middle class, earning between $64,300 and $93,800 — took in 14.7 percent of America’s income but paid only 9.4 percent of federal taxes. And the lowest 20 percent of earners, making less than $23,500, brought home 5 percent of the nation’s income (much of which was transfer payments from the rest of America) but paid only 0.3 percent of federal taxes.
The effective federal tax rates for these groups were: 1 percent for the lowest quintile, 11.1 percent for the middle quintile, and 23.2 percent for the highest quintile. Keep this in mind when liberals tell you that data showing the rich pay a disproportionate share of all taxes are skewed because they don’t include the fact that lower income Americans pay Social Security and Medicare (payroll) taxes; the CBO data do include those taxes, as well as certain federal excise taxes such as on alcohol and tobacco. (Excise taxes are the only category in which lower earners pay more tax as a share of their income than higher earners because they spend disproportionally more on beer and cigarettes.)
Even these numbers understate the penalty for success in America. The top 1 percent, who earned 13.4 percent of the nation’s income in 2009, paid 22.3 percent of all federal taxes and their average tax rate was 28.9 percent.
By including Social Security and Medicare (payroll) taxes, which — at least theoretically — return to those who pay them as health benefits or cash repayments in the future, the CBO study plays down the degree to which a small section of society is paying the freight for the entire nation. For example, the top 1 percent of earners paid nearly 37 percent of all federal income taxes — down from over 40 percent just a couple of years earlier because the recession hurt upper-earners disproportionately. The top 10 percent of earners pay an astonishing 70.5 percent of federal income taxes.
Looking only at income taxes, as this Tax Foundation report does, other relevant facts jump out:
- While tax rates for the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers have been dropping steadily for three decades, rates for the highest quintile, and particularly the top one percent, have been little changed. The tax code is more “progressive” than any time in our nation’s recent history because so many Americans now pay no income tax at all.
- The top quintile “now pays 94% of income taxes.”
- The share of national income earned by the top 1 percent has dropped to roughly the average level found the 1990s.
Even with a CBO methodology which obscures the magnitude of the penalty for success in America, the lessons from the study go beyond debunking Obama’s repeated claim that “millionaires and billionaires” don’t pay their “fair share.”
If all Americans benefit equally from having a strong national defense (I defy the left to argue that the life of a rich person is worth more than the life of a poor person), and with more than two-thirds of federal spending going to the combination of transfer payments (about 43 percent), defense (about 19 percent), and interest on our debt (about 6 percent), one can argue that all — more than all — federal discretionary spending such as on roads, education, and scientific research is funded by the small slice of American society whom Barack Obama and friends most demonize.
The tameness with which the “rich” react to the sucking of their economic blood by the sanctimonious leeches of government is a testament to the generous spirit of Americans, particular of the Americans whom the left most aggressively attacks as selfish and uncaring — as literally pushing granny off a cliff. At least leeches have the good manners not to ask for thanks.
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 (247) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/03/no-you-didnt-build-that
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
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.3.12 @ 6:20AM
“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.3.12 @ 6:36AM
As long as you know if Romney is elected POTUS, he wont reduce your taxes much-- and wont reduce the size and scope of government at all.
Harry the Horrible| 8.3.12 @ 9:19AM
If he lowers the rate of growth of government, we'll be ahead, troll.
Besides, the last thing any sane person wants is a lame duck Obama, who can be more "flexible."
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.3.12 @ 9:44AM
"If he lowers the rate of growth of government"
Romney wont even do that, he is nothing but an opportunist who will say anything to be elected POTUS; Romney would say "read my lips no new taxes" if it would get him elected. He thinks because his father was important (as with Bush) he is destined for great things. He just wants power.
DTOM| 8.3.12 @ 10:23AM
The entire objective of the Obama re-election campaign is to dis-spirit and depress middle of the road and conservative turnout.
If you spout the line that there will be no difference between Romney an Obama, you are spouting a lie, a big lie, that Joseph Goebbells (Hitler's propagandist for you ill-informed ones) would surely be proud of.
The only thing to wonder about you who spouting the "no difference between Romney and Obama" meme is, are you that stupid or are you that evil?
Don't Tread On Me
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.3.12 @ 10:45AM
No, I say Obama is as good as Clinton (who did better than both Bushes at both domestic and foreign policies.
While I say Romney is merely the son of George Romney and nothing more.
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 11:02AM
Clinton is an American liberal, but a patriotic liberal. He is """"NOT"""""" a trojun-horsed, unvetted, Muslim-oriented, Acorn community organizing radical, that is hell bent on destroying this country. Therein lies the difference between the two!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.3.12 @ 11:06AM
"Clinton is an American liberal, but a patriotic liberal"
Back in the '90s, you were saying Clinton was unpatriotic, now you change your tune and say he was patriotic.
Can't you get your story straight?
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 11:47AM
As Romney said to HARRYARS, "put up or shut up"! """"""I"""""" nor anyone else ever said that Clinton was unpatriotic. Maybe stupid, maybe thiks with his sexual organ, etc. Quit doing what all Democrats do, which is LYING, NOT TELLING THE TRUTH, PROVARICATING, etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DTOM| 8.3.12 @ 11:51AM
No, BSn, Oldefarte does not have printed talking points to work from like you do.
You should define "better" as you use it in reference to how Bill Clinton performed as President.
Don't forget - he tried to launch Hillarycare and failed. Then his agenda was handed to him by the Gingrich led Congress for six years. And all he did was try to slow down and stop the conservative movement and was only slightly successful at it. Sure, 'he did better.'
I think oldefarte's point is that in comparison to Clinton's anti-war, draft dodging, I hate the US military youth, Obama looks UNpatriotic.
He does - when he sells us out. Prima facia evidence: "Tell Putin I can be more flexible after the election!"
Clinton was a lying scumbag (blue dress!); Obama is the lying scumbag's lying scumbag!
And you are a paid stooge.
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 1:57PM
Yep ["I think oldefarte's point is that in comparison to Clinton's anti-war, draft dodging, I hate the US military youth, Obama looks UNpatriotic"] one was a Kennedy-isk liberal whereas the other was a Mohammed-isk domestic terrorist!!!!!!!!!
Doctor Right| 8.3.12 @ 3:24PM
You're very energetic today, Brooksie!
What happened? Did you sniff some poppers and get busy with some of the fellas down at the bath house last night?
Skippy| 8.3.12 @ 4:41PM
Actually Brooksthenegro's desperation is hilarious!
The last tactic he has is to tell us Romney is a fake.
We don't care if he's a cake!
His presence at 1600 Penn Ave and the liberal use of air freshener within will be a greath of fresh air.
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 5:41PM
"The truth is the opposite of what The Lyingest Sack a Sh*t the world has ever known, is telling us?"
What's next? Harry Ried DIDN'T get a Phone Call from a "Mole" inside Bain Capital?
An Unemployment Check ISN'T the Best Stimulus we could ever get?
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank DIDN'T know that Fannie and Freddie were Fckd?
The Rapist DID have Sex with that Woman - Ms. Lewinski, Oral Sex really IS Sex, and the Definition of "IS" doesn't matter?
Is that what you're saying?!
Whoa. I just got a rush.
This is not about The Rich. It's about The Poor. As we shall soon see, as France witnesses a Great Migration of their Wealthiest Wealthy Rich people, their Companies and the jobs that go with them, in search of Friendlier Climes.
In truth, we need not look elsewhere for a prediction.
You're a smart guy. Tell everyone how many BILLION$, Companies are sitting on, because they're waiting for this Election.
Then, think for a second, and try and come up with a number for all of the Businesses that will Head for the Doors, if The Dark One retains the Throne.
Now, think just one more second about why ANYONE would do the things that He, and his Party are DELIBERATELY DOING to this Economy, this Country, and it's People.
There's only one Answer: "Tis better to Rule in Hell, than to Serve in Heaven."
Nothing you wrote means ANYTHING, to them.
Their Eyes are on the Prize.
A Throne in Hell.
Nina in MA| 8.4.12 @ 7:56AM
As opposed to Obama....right?
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 10:58AM
If the other guy is re-elected, you'll have the complete destruction of this nation......which would you prefer??????????
vtwin| 8.3.12 @ 1:13PM
Dear President Obama,
Should you not be reelected in November I understand there might be an opening at Bain Capital for a new CEO…No wait!
WASHINGTON—Employers added 163,000 jobs in July after three months of sluggish hiring, a pleasant surprise that could signal the U.S. economy may be resilient enough to shake off a midyear slump.
Sorry, it looks like Bain Capital’s present CEO will not be leaving Bain Capital in January after all.
Sincerely,
vtwin
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 1:49PM
Dear vtwin: Obviously you're too ignorant to understand that this country is now in a serious DEPRESSION, not recession, that we have [officially-corruptably] 8% unemployment BUT if truth be told un-officially 20%, that BLS etc can manipulate statistical figures to reach a desired effect and to ignore THOSE INDIVIDUALS NO LONGER LOOKING FOR WORK in their calculations, that businesses are not nor will never [as long as this POTUS hold office] hire additional workers or build additional plants due to their fear of his taxiation/regulations, etc. Grow a brain, shut your mouth and GO AWAY! Sincerely, OF!!!!
vtwin| 8.3.12 @ 3:06PM
Yes I agree, the country is dire straits with massive unemployment that has gone on too long and an ever increasing national debt. But Obama inherited all this from the Bush the 750,000 jobs being lost every month, $1.3 trillion projected annual defects because of the revenue shortfall the result of the Bush recession, and two wars. But under Obama we have seen a turnaround in the economy and an end to a least one of Bush’s wars. If Bush got eight years to fuck it up I say given Obama eight years to fix it.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 4:48PM
No matter how often we ask liberals to explain how Bush ruined everything and debunk everything they say, they always come back the next day and start the lie over again.
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 5:20PM
The Unemployment Rate was RAISED to 8.3%.
16%, if you actually counted EVERYBODY that isn't working.
What's wrong with you?
Anthony| 8.3.12 @ 4:22PM
Let's see vtwin, San Bernadino has declared bankruptcy, that's four Calf cities. Perhaps Bain Capital can wait a few more weeks and purchase the state of Calf for a few pennies on the dollar.
They'll need trolls to do the work Mexicans won't. Hey vtwin, a job at last!!! Now you can afford to go to Chic Fil A without borrowing money from mommy and daddy.
Jack in Wi| 8.3.12 @ 7:12AM
I used to be quite a big public works contractor who did many hundreds of often complcated contracts. There is just a huge amout of waste in work that the government directs, especially since the Federal government got so heavily involved. We would be far better off if we had much less public involvement. The airports have been privatized in some countries and it has been a windfall for the governments. The water depts in Britain were sold and again it was a windfall. In Chicago Mayor Daley sold the Skyway and the parking meters among other things and then wasted the money on crooked unions and pals. The author above does a good job on this subject.
I read yesterday on Drudge that Romney is 10 points behind Obama, who is now over 50%.
Right now I think his campign is pathetic. Either he shapes it up by labor day or Obama will be re-elected. He better do something fast or he will end up like Dole and McCain.
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.3.12 @ 7:19AM
He IS Dole and McCain!
The main benefit to Romney losing is the GOP wont be able to run another turkey, it would be too embarrassing; it would be comparable to the Art
Linkletters inviting Tim Leary to their daughter's memorial service.
Truncheon| 8.3.12 @ 9:29AM
The main benefit to McCain losing, is the GOP won't be able to run another turkey...
Apparently, you missed the GOP revolution. Sorry. Like Woodstock, you can't go there, if you weren't there. You can't re-create Woodstock.
Likewise, you can't recreate 2008. Sorry you weren't there...
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.3.12 @ 9:45AM
"Apparently, you missed the GOP revolution"
There was no revolution.. they only replaced Bush with Romney-- switcheroo.
DTOM| 8.3.12 @ 10:24AM
2010 NEVER happened, right?
Are you that stupid or that evil, BSn?
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.3.12 @ 10:46AM
2010 was no revolution, it was nothing similar to 1980.
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 11:06AM
No, the "revolution" occurred on 11/4/08, when this nation was trojun-horsed captured!!!!!!!
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.3.12 @ 11:09AM
DTOM says there WAS a revolution in 2010-- but you and I know it was cosmetic, Oldefarte; as those Tea Party outfits from 1774 are superficial.
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 11:44AM
No, those "Tea Party outfits" were all that stands between you and governmental imprisonment, and in no way are they "superficial". The one and only reason why this nation is beginning to partially WAKE UP is due to the'Tea Party" movements that are slapping the excrement out of politicians and making them realize WHO PAYS THEIR PAYCHECKS, and it ain't the AFL-CIO, Hollywood, univeristy pinheads, or John Kerry windsurfers!!!!!!!
DTOM| 8.3.12 @ 4:22PM
BSn;
Good point - in 1980 the Democrats held onto the House. In 2010, they didn't.
Sniff that, it's coffee. Now wake up!
Dolt...
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 11:05AM
There will no benefit to Romney losing, and it will be comparable to inviting Charles Manson to your home for a party!!!!!!!
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.3.12 @ 11:15AM
If Romney loses, you'll have to either run a candidate who isn't a dynacist such as Bush;
nor a Hollywood pretty-boy such as Romney.
Romneys and Bushes run for office because of brand-name appeal more than anything else.
Bush, Rolex, Romney, Nike...
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 11:39AM
If Romney loses, there won't be a future reason to run anybody...since this country will be destroyed and will no longer exist as we know it. Your "brand name appeal" will be CUBAN CIGARS or RUSSIAN VODKA!!!!!!!
Jack in Wi| 8.4.12 @ 10:47PM
We sure run a lot of old timers. Romney is 64 as was Bush Sr. the first time. Dole and McCain were way in their 70's. The only young guy the Republicans put up in 32 years was the younger Bush and he was a total flop. The party needs some new blood and new ideas.
Doctor Right| 8.3.12 @ 3:26PM
I wouldn't crow about having an "embarrassing" candidate.
Your guy is the dumbest, least qualified, least-experienced fool to ever sit in the White House.
He's the poster boy for why Affirmative Action needs to end.
DTOM| 8.3.12 @ 4:22PM
That includes Forrest Gump, BTW!!!
spike59| 8.3.12 @ 4:47PM
Gump would be a HUGE improvement over the dolt currently dishonoring the Oval Office
Occam's Tool| 8.3.12 @ 10:55AM
Nice to see that you once did something useful, Jack. Now you are simply a blight.
vtwin| 8.3.12 @ 12:47PM
Jack, It’s not the Romney campaign that is “pathetic” it’s the candidate that is pathetic. Secret overseas back accounts, off-shoring jobs, sucking the financial life blood out of companies then sending the carcass to bankruptcy court and the employees to the unemployment lines all while making Romney hundreds of millions of dollars, and now we find out he wasn’t paying ANY taxes for 10 years. Romney is looking worst in the polls than either Bush Sr or Bob Dole at this point in their respective failed bids for the Presidency because of Romney not his campaign. I suggest conservatives dump Romney at Republicon convention or live with four more years of the “community organizer.”
JD| 8.3.12 @ 1:19PM
His campaign IS pathetic, in that it hasn't quashed despicable lies like yours sufficiently.
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 5:23PM
"And, now we find out that he didn't pay taxes for 10 Years."
Really?
Let's see the Proof.
Or, STFU.
SCMike| 8.3.12 @ 6:32AM
Time for a little Heinlein -
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 7:32AM
Indeed.
Where would Brooksblacknegrohomo be, without BIG PHARMA?
Where would all of the "Tolerent" Pole Munchers be without out The Evil Pharmecutical Companies?
Most likely, they'd be Dead.
And, what about the High Profits made by Companies that build their products, overseas, in Low Wage SWEAT SHOPS?
If Occupy Wall Street were here, right now? They would be texting you about this, something fierce on their IPads, IPhones, and their Apple Laptop 5,000, seemingly Ignorant to the fact that, if their Gizmoes, and Gadgets, were made HERE, by their Union Brothers and Sisters? Their nasty little habit of making Confiscatory Demands for Everything under the Sun, "OR WE SRIKE!" would result in I their Doohickies Retailing at around $3,000, instead of $300.
As far as "Whenever this tiny Minority is kept from creating, or ( as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back in to poverty" goes?
The Fall of the Roman Empire.
The Dark Ages.
The Inquisition.
Auschwitz.
The Iron Curtain.
The Great Awakening.
The Killing Fields.
Revelation.
Occam's Tool| 8.3.12 @ 10:58AM
It is amazing to me how many people think of the tax structure as an income redistribution scheme rather than as a government money raising scheme. They look at taxes as a static issue, despite evidence showing that higher taxes discourage behavior that is taxed, and lower taxes result in increased societal wealth. Personally, I think envy is the worst of the seven deadly sins.
Al Adab| 8.3.12 @ 11:17AM
That is what the progressive income tax is all about. How can we treat one persons income differently than anothers simply on the basis of volume or source? The implication of his "you didn't build that" comment is that those who make money owe the collective that ostensibly made it possible. Few concepts could be more at opposition to the American tradition and the philosophy of our government and economic system.
vtwin| 8.3.12 @ 3:15PM
Agreed, taxing a factory worker or a firefighter at over 20% because his or her is "earned income"and Romney's income at 13% because it is "investment income" is not only wrong it is bankrupting our country.
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 3:32PM
You're a dolt. You do realize that as a investor earns his income it is taxed, then once he invest it and gets returns on that it is taxed again don't you?
Of course you do, but that wasn't in the talking points was it?
vtwin| 8.3.12 @ 4:35PM
Yes, but do you realize you are taxed only on any additional gains from the second investment?
spike59| 8.3.12 @ 4:46PM
...and??? you have ALREADY been hit with the higher rate when you EARNED the money you invested...perhaps you're stumbling on the concept of 'earning', as it IS foreign to the Left
spike59| 8.3.12 @ 4:44PM
no! see, you're forgetting that what the investor has to invest is what he first somehow obtained from 'the wealth'...that magical pile of money deposited by an invisible pink unicorn or stolen from people with NO money to begin with, i'm not sure which; DO try to keep up with the liberal fables
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 5:45PM
Well as long as it not from the Leprechaun farts. That would be totally unfair.
Al Adab| 8.3.12 @ 3:39PM
vtwin:
Percentage should be the same across the board, deductions should be few and the code should be about five pages instead of 40,000. We have found common ground so let us build upon it.
vtwin| 8.3.12 @ 4:20PM
Sure, we can agree on the same tax rate across income levels. But, I can still kill you over what we spend the taxes collected on right?
spike59| 8.3.12 @ 4:31PM
ObaMao has come up witha new, simplified tax form:
-=======================
OBAMA TAX FORM
1-how much did you make last year?
2-send it in
CJW| 8.3.12 @ 4:23PM
vtwin
What tax rate did your girl Hillary pay on the $100,000 she scammed, er I mean made, on her $1,000 "investment" in cattle futures?
Why didn't Obama and the Dem Congress in 2009 and 2010 raise, or try to, the capital gains tax to equal the other "earned" income tax rate? Hint: many rich Dems like the capital gains tax. Think Kennedy, Kerry-Heinz, Jay Rockefeller, Pelosi, Feinstein, and the rest of the limousine liberal trust fund hypocrites.
vtwin| 8.3.12 @ 4:46PM
CJW, are you suggesting we for buy enough rope of everyone in the top 2%?
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 5:37PM
You do realize, that a PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX, as well as an IHERTENCE TAX, and the GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF LAND, are all in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.
Don't you?
Is that the way you wanna go, tough guy?
Humanity has done it your way, throughout it's History, and it always goes the same way.
An Oppressive Centralized Government, with Secret Police, Gulags, Forced Starvations, Concentration Camps filled with Political Prisoners, followed by Mass Killings of its own people, until they Rise Up, at the Cost of Millions of Lives.
That's what made, what our Founding Fathers Created, so Special.
Are you really this Fckng Stupid?
I'm thinking, you are.
And, you won't come to your senses, until they come after YOU.
CJW| 8.3.12 @ 7:19PM
vtwin
don't understand question
please re-phrase
Houdini| 8.3.12 @ 11:26AM
Agreed. If you want less of something...tax it. Income, profits, business, hard work....and the list goes on.
vtwin| 8.3.12 @ 3:18PM
Great, I propose we tax neo-cons. Any seconds?
Al Adab| 8.3.12 @ 3:41PM
LOL, sadly that would violate our first principle of treating all people and their incomes equally.
CJW| 8.3.12 @ 4:17PM
We would need an ID that says ne-con and you leftyDems oppose voter ID.
Dodd2| 8.3.12 @ 7:19AM
In fact, B. Hussein Oama has never done a constructive thing in his life.
Gary B| 8.3.12 @ 10:24AM
Right... Vandalism is his stock in trade. He simply wrecks things other people have built to the cheers of his brothers in vandalism - the moochers. If they could see ten feet beyond the end of their noses, they'd realize they're killing private enterprise - you know - the place where all the golden eggs come from. There's dumb and then there's suicidal dumb.
DTOM| 8.3.12 @ 10:26AM
That is the function of progressives - Destroy, destroy, destroy.
It is their nature - they are evil.
spike59| 8.3.12 @ 4:30PM
well, he and the 'choom gang' DID create or save jobs for coke dealers, smugglers, and Colombian narco-terrorists
Von Mises Jr| 8.3.12 @ 8:10AM
"The Wealth of Nations" (1776) enlightens on how wealth is created. The baker bakes bread to buy shoes for his children and a coat for his wife. The cobbler and seamstress buy meat for the table and oil for the lamps. This is how wealth is created. It is NOT, I repeat NOT created by a police state giving out bogus tickets that must be settled for $450 or an EPA Nazi crucifying oil companies or the government confiscating money to give to bogus social security disability and unemployment recipients.
Furthermore, the private sector is efficient since it is subject to competition. People individually choose products that allocate future resources. Conversely, Obama gave $528M to his buddies at Solyndra; built Chevy Volt's while the stock of this bailed out company dropped from $33 IPO to $19. They build infrastructure inefficiently such as the "Big dig" in Boston that cost of $24B compared to the $2.8B budget. Moreover, a fatal collapse and more leaks than a sieve were the result.
So Ross is completely correct in that the money is confiscated by government from the private sector, but it also involves massive fraud, waste, abuse and the outcomes usually suck by comparison to free market capitalism.
Al Adab| 8.3.12 @ 11:21AM
Like I wrote above to Dr. Occam the entire theory behind progressive income tax rates is redistribution. Government policies should encourage the creation of wealth by individuals not the jealous resnetment which, while it may buy votes, penalizes the very efforts which as JFK said, "raise all ships".
CJW| 8.3.12 @ 11:46AM
Al Adab
It is also about control and power. The tax code has deductions, credits, definitions of income, different rates for difference income, penalties, etc. This ceates the incentive for lobbyists to pay lawmakers for favored legislation, and give lawmakers power to dispense tax goodies, and campaign contributions in return.
Plus the government decideds what is income and what rates it is taxed, and what activities and expenses qualify for deductions and credits.
Most political campaign promises are about what we will do with the tax code, tax this, don't tax that, credit for this, etc.
The end result is what you said: take money from the taxpayers and then distribute as the government sees fit in the form of deductions and credits. A flat tax and/or sales tax would eliminate much of this control and power.
Al Adab| 8.3.12 @ 3:43PM
W:
Right on point again. As we have said many times in these pages, The Issue is never the Issue, the Issue is Control.
CJW| 8.3.12 @ 4:24PM
Al Adab
Another week battling the philistines. Have a pleasant weekend.
Mimi | 8.3.12 @ 8:20AM
Ross...your figures, on how much the "RICH" really pay to the Federal Govt. is an eye opener.
Obama should be thanking them not trashing them.
"O" will never be re-elected...how can he? He has not served the American People well....The far-left liberal attitudes and policies is a NO-GO.
We are a center right nation and he has been un-willing to budge...he stubbornly clings to his ideology and serves only the 20%. He is at war with factions of this nation...like the Catholic church, the well to do, only wants Republicans to "STAY IN THE BACK- SEAT", he's brought racism which was well on it's way to dying on the vine , to new harmful levels...PITS one group against another.
Nothing is gonna move in this country on anything...until the day he is defeated...the vague threats felt will end...maybe in the lame-duck we can accomplish something.
Jacob McCandles| 8.3.12 @ 8:31AM
These figures do not matter to dedicated leftists and the uninformed that follow them. What matters to the left is what Romney has left AFTER paying millions in taxes. Look at his 4 homes! Look at his wife's horse? 77,000 a year to keep a horse!
This reveals that Obama is playing on class envy. How dispicable is that, considering that his policies are destroying this nation.
PolishKnight| 8.3.12 @ 10:27AM
Jacob, you're observation reminds me of a previous observation by Dan Quayle: When they criticize a Republican for a certain trait, they fail to realize that their beloved, white, Northeast elite hero John F Kennedy was the same way. Quayle got hit with the retort: "You're no John F Kennedy!"
Indeed. Neither was John Edwards though: A sleazy trial lawyer. Or John Kerry: A war hero who got out of the military as soon as possible on minor wounds and then stabbed his fellow vets in the back and was angry when they didn't love him and later lived high on the hog from a dead man's fortune.
In other words, the Dems are absolutely no less elitist. What could Romney counter with? Perhaps lots and lots of ads with photos showing Obama golfing in Martha's Vineyard with rich white oligarchs. His daughters and wife spending taxpayer money on lavish vacations in Europe...
Alej| 8.4.12 @ 2:40PM
"Or John Kerry: A self-decorated war "hero" who got out of the military as soon as possible on minor self-inflicted (one grenade splinter coming from his own grenade thrown for the camera) wounds ... ."
Fixed it for you.
Truncheon| 8.3.12 @ 8:34AM
Now if we could find a way to transmit this notion, in about two or three concise sentences, life would be good. I have failed in all attempts to do so :(
DTOM| 8.3.12 @ 10:30AM
How about this:
ALL taxes are paid out of profits. If there's no profit, there's nothing left for the government to take. If you kill profits, you kill taxes.
How's that golden goose sandwich tasting there, Barry ol' buddy? You moron.
BTW I'm calling Barry, with his mouthful of cooked goose, a moron not Truncheon, of course.
Don't Tread On Me!
Louis Jenkins| 8.3.12 @ 8:40AM
Mimi, you stated the one fact that is obvious. This country will not move as long as Obama is the Commander n Thief. I keep saying that he must be defeated even though Romney is luke warm on most issues. And the Republicans have only shown a willingness to stay in the backseat, and yes, no matter what we may say that is contra to Obama's policies, we are racist. A convienent excuse. Basically Obama has declared war on the rich, which is about the only argument he has left in his bag of dastardly tricks.
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 8:46AM
"The truth is the opposite of what The Lyingest Sack a Sh*t the world has ever known, is telling us?"
What's next? Harry Ried DIDN'T get a Phone Call from a "Mole" inside Bain Capital?
An Unemployment Check ISN'T the Best Stimulus we could ever get?
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank DIDN'T know that Fannie and Freddie were Fckd?
The Rapist DID have Sex with that Woman - Ms. Lewinski, Oral Sex really IS Sex, and the Definition of "IS" doesn't matter?
Is that what you're saying?!
Whoa. I just got a rush.
This is not about The Rich. It's about The Poor. As we shall soon see, as France witnesses a Great Migration of their Wealthiest Wealthy Rich people, their Companies and the jobs that go with them, in search of Friendlier Climes.
In truth, we need not look elsewhere for a prediction.
You're a smart guy. Tell everyone how many BILLION$, Companies are sitting on, because they're waiting for this Election.
Then, think for a second, and try and come up with a number for all of the Businesses that will Head for the Doors, if The Dark One retains the Throne.
Now, think just one more second about why ANYONE would do the things that He, and his Party are DELIBERATELY DOING to this Economy, this Country, and it's People.
There's only one Answer: "Tis better to Rule in Hell, than to Serve in Heaven."
Nothing you wrote means ANYTHING, to them.
Their Eyes are on the Prize.
A Throne in Hell.
Cat Shot| 8.3.12 @ 9:19AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I believe it's TRILLION$, comanies are sitting on waiting for the locker room window to open.
Von Mises Jr| 8.3.12 @ 9:50AM
The number is touted to be two to three trillion. Apple is sitting on $100 billion.
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 10:26AM
And how much is a Trillion?
It's a lot of Billions.
So, technically, I was right.
So there.
Anthony| 8.3.12 @ 9:27AM
TLP, Harry Reid is unhinged, his vile viciousness has gone into full dementia.
The sick bastard can't even lie with a modicum of restraint.
Romney hasn't paid taxes in TEN YEARS, so says Harry's imaginary friend. Gee, I wonder how the IRS, with all of Obozo's goons at the head, have managed not to discover this fact???
I think we all should attempt to call Reid's office today and ask to be put immediately through to the Wizzard of Washington, to tell Reid that we have the real dirt on Romney.
Melvin in NC is indeed correct. Sometimes elections just aren't enough to do the job right of ridding America of vile scum.
spike59| 8.3.12 @ 4:12PM
the Left's mask hasn't slipped, it's been ripped clean off-they are so desparate and pacic-stricken over the coming shellacking, they have gone on 'red (pun intended) alert'
cell whisperer| 8.3.12 @ 9:09AM
We know we have the principles right. Let's stop waiting and start working. PA once had a thriving, unionized steel industry. Now, only one company in the USA makes stainless steel flatware and I'm sick of all the Chinese products flooding our markets.
How about a private, NON-UNION steel industry rebirth in PA?
Truncheon| 8.3.12 @ 9:20AM
You find no value in Chinese products? I find tremendous value in them.
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 5:45PM
Really?
Go buy your kid a Chinese Toy.
And, after you've RETURNED IT 10 Times, because it's a Piece Of Shit?
Then get back to me, about how Great these Chinese Products are.
What a Putz.
Pecos Pete| 8.3.12 @ 9:09AM
The trolls are up late this morning, except for Brooksie. To the left, the progressives, it simply isn't fair for anyone to be rich. Forget facts, facts are meaningless. Forward to fairness /sarc.
Anthony| 8.3.12 @ 9:14AM
Of course the Kenyan Muslim Marxist built it. Hell, he's got a Nobel Prize to prove it, Kaminsky!!
And he damn well ratcheted up the quality of the pathetic Harvard Law Review with his insightful articles, as well.
And those summers of recovery, well, who do you think rolled up his sleeves and did all that????
Nick| 8.3.12 @ 10:01AM
"The truth is the opposite: It is government that is utterly dependent on the private sector [...]."
I had the same thought, Mr. Kaminsky, when I heard O'Bama foolishly proclaim that entrepreneurs didn't build their businesses. It's exactly the opposite.
It is successful businesses which create the need for more infrastructure. Being from Detroit, I know how much this once great city grew, thanks to Henry Ford and the rapid growth of the auto industry, at the beginning of the 20th century.
It was this rapid private sector expansion that finally produced the Ambassador Bridge, in 1929, the first (and only) bridge bridge between Detroit and Windsor. The bridge is privately owned, by the way. "Government didn't build that!"
It was the explosion of the auto industry that required the improvement of the nations roads, thus, creating even more businesses. But, you can say the same about Pittsburgh and the steel industry, or, Silicon Valley. All big cities in this country grew because there were successful businesses that had jobs.
Liberals refuse to accept this fact.
All infrastructure building is paid for by the increased tax revenue generated by a successful industry, and all the small businesses that are created as a result of that industry.
Plus, the "government" doesn't build anything. Governments hire private sector corporations to build roads, bridges, schools, etc.
And, then liberal government bureaucrats proceed to let them fall apart.
CJW| 8.3.12 @ 4:25PM
Nick
I bet whenever you have a problem with the air conditioners and furnaces in your business, you call some federal, or Deeetroit city, bureaucrat and he helps you.
Nick| 8.3.12 @ 8:07PM
Actually, CJW, I have President "You Didn't Build That!" on speed-dial. He does know everything about everything, being omniscient, and all.
And, you can all thank GHW Bush and whoever voted for the Clean Air Act for increasing your A/C bills. Because that stupid law forced all HVAC contractors to buy machines to suck out the freon in your A/C to fix a leak.
It also phased out R-22 and R-12 freon causing their prices to sky-rocket. Meanwhile, the Third World gets to use this freon, no problem.
One more "well-intentioned" law that did nothing but cause us all to spend more money.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 10:25AM
"Income distribution" is misleading only if you can't understand that 'distribution' has more than one meaning.
I notice the tax foundation report you use to show how rough things are on the rich only uses data that runs up to 2009. Don't you worry, Ross. In 2010, 93% of income gains went to the top 1% of income earners, so the recovery has clearly begun. The top 1% showed an average income increase in 2010 of 11.6%, while the bottom 99% showed an average income increase of 0.2% (that is not a typo). Corporate profits are still pretty high. The stock market is doing well. Job market? Well that's another story.
It's pretty clear that if there's one group of people our economic policies haven't hurt, it's the more affluent.
George S| 8.3.12 @ 10:51AM
Yes. The same way that the Olympics distributes gold medals. The winners of every event receive a gold medal and every event has a winner. So there is a pie of a fixed amount of gold medals and the size of that pie is determined by the number of competitive events, ergo:
If one country wins more gold medals, they get a larger share of the gold medal pie. That means other countries have gold medal unfavorably distributed away from them. So the IOC should redistribute the gold medals more fairly. That can only happen by awarding the medals on an arbitrary and capricious manner deemed fair by... who, exactly?
But the pie isn't fixed. If the IOC adds more competitions, their "Fed" prints more gold medals, backed up by athletic competition (labor). If the IOC printed gold medals for everybody (the Little League Baseball Competition) then the medals can be more fairly distributed to a greater number of athletes, thereby evening the playing field with the athletically greedy one percenters.
Everyone gets a medal. Utopia.
George Collins| 8.3.12 @ 10:54AM
Could it be, DRed, that the top 1% are more productive, and produce more goods and services of value than others?
Could it be that the top 1% worked hard to go to top universities, and burn the midnight oil to do well and get ahead?
Could it be that the top 1% worked 12 hours a day in entry level positions to get ahead, or started businesses as they risked everything to make a better life for themselves?
You have to ask yourself these questions as you see folks spending their time at Disneyland or in front of slot machines or in tattoo parlors, while others are doing the work of this country.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 11:14AM
I'm not sure what your point is. Rich people deserve to be rich? Sure. They are rich. During our last two economic booms, income gains for the rich have far outstripped those of the less successful. (and obviously, far outstripped the losses they suffered during our recent downturn) So, again, rich people in this country are doing well. Really, really well. You should be happy. Why aren't you happy?
JD| 8.3.12 @ 11:53AM
Read the article. Read the CBO report. Income for the rich isn't up more than income for other groups. Your party has pushed that lie, but it is a lie, and nothing more.
George Collins| 8.3.12 @ 12:47PM
DRed,
I have worked hard, and have been compensated commensurately. However, I am very uneasy about the financial situation in the country. I employ over 125 people, and consequently feel responsible in many ways for the financial well-being of over 125 families.
We have not laid off one person in the past three years even though we are under constant assault by government regulators, higher taxes, fees, and increasing regulations.
I am happy to pay taxes, and sound regulation is beneficial to our business.
The fact remains, however, that the federal government has overstepped its bounds, and it is hurting our business and jeopardizing the livelihoods of our team.
We produce products that people want. Our sales continue to grow. I am pleased,even happy, but the term "deserve" never enters my consciousness.
We have ambitious goals for growth, which probably means more hiring, but the federal government, and the states, need to back off a little or the expansion plans will be shelved.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 2:24PM
I have very little experience when it comes to business regulation, but it's very easy for me to imagine you have too much crap to deal with from a regulatory standpoint. What do you need them to back off with (the feds) for your expansion plans? (just curious)
spike59| 8.3.12 @ 4:15PM
I have very little experience when it comes to business regulation
=====================
well, sure...not too many regs at the drive-thru, right?
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 5:49PM
You should really just Kill Yourself, or Move.
This is the system that has made us the Greatest, Most Powerful Force for Freedom, in the History of the world.
If you wanna live like Cubans do?
Move to Cuba, and STFU.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 5:54PM
Thanks Timmy! You have a wonderful weekend.
TLP| 8.4.12 @ 8:37AM
WTF do you want?
California is IMPLODING. Everyday, another Bankrupt Democrat City.
Michigan is Imploding.
Illinois is Burning.
These are all perfect examples of Unfettered Liberalism, run Amok.
Your Teachers Union Schools DON'T WORK.
Your Public Service Unions, with their Liberal Democrat Politician Allies, have Torn through the State, and Municipal Treasuries, like LOCUSTS. Leaving NOTHING behind, in their wake.
Oakland, Baltimore, Gary, Flynt, Milwaukee, Philly, Los Angeles, Charlotte, and Chicago have NO GO ZONES, where The Criminals own the Streets, after dark.
Detroit is being BULLDOZED as we speak.
This is what LIBERALISM has Wrought.
Poverty, Crime, Murder, Hopelessness, and Despair.
But, you, like your African Prince, would have us believe that, if we just did MORE LIBERAL SHIT, things would get better.
Forget going to Cuba.
Just kill yourself, or move to Detroit.
Same thing
John Navratil| 8.3.12 @ 11:00AM
DRed,
A bit of a truism, isn't it? Economic polices damage the wealthy but the real hurt always is at the margin. The libs seem to think that flinging a bit of someone's cash over the fence will move the fence. And it does, for a while, and at great cost, but it never removes the fence.
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 11:07AM
Wait a minute. You used 2010 figures and then say the rich are getting richer. Last I checked Bush left office in 2008 so who do we get to blame for your story of the rich getting richer and the income disparity getting worse?
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 11:22AM
I haven't seen Obama do anything that would hurt the rich. That's the point. This article is nothing but a long shriek about how terrible it is to be rich in America now, what with all the moochers and the marxists. But despite that, the rich are getting richer. In terms of share of national income, it's the best time to be a rich American in like 70 years. Ross should be celebrating, not whining about Karl Marx. I mean, get freaking real here. Marx? Capital gains taxes are about as low as they've been in decades. The highest marginal tax rate is 35%. That's Marxist?
John Navratil| 8.3.12 @ 11:33AM
DRed,
I take it you disagreed with Sowell's column on Tuesday.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 11:36AM
He wrote a column ridiculing the idea that Obama is a marxist?
John Navratil| 8.3.12 @ 12:17PM
DRed,
No, disputing "But despite that, the rich are getting richer. In terms of share of national income, it's the best time to be a rich American in like 70 years."
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 12:43PM
http://www.economist.com/node/21543178
That Economist article contradicts his contention that "most people in that bracket are there for only one year in a decade."
As far as the idea that the rich aren't getting richer, Sowell and Ross did the same thing, in that they picked the two years that made up the recession and then claimed that it proves that the rich aren't getting richer. If you look over a longer term the trend is incontrovertible and it looks like that two year trend has already reversed itself.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 12:50PM
I debunked your claim below, I won't bother doing it again. As for your article, its hate is obvious, but it's more anecdotal than statistical, as with most things liberal.
The key facts remain: 1) Reclassifying wealth through tax code changes distorts numbers. 2) Increasing liberalization (more "progressive" and complex taxes, more spending, larger government) has coincided with stagnation of the non-rich. 3) The rich continue to thrive by navigating federal complexity, leveraging the concentration of power in government, and moving overseas.
Perhaps if government focused less on attacking the rich and more on not hurting the poor, we'd be better off?
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 1:07PM
Debunked? By making a totally unsubstantiated claim the effect of "eliminating deductions and exclusions". That is, you realize, a purely anecdotal bit of evidence.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 1:11PM
Do you know what "anecdotal" means? There are plenty of records demonstrate changes in taxable income vs other forms of "income" for the rich through the 1980s. That money simply changed buckets is clear.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 2:26PM
Well then it should be easy for you to show me some evidence.
John Navratil| 8.3.12 @ 3:01PM
DRed,
The Economist, which was once a reasonable magazine, cites data from 2008. Sowell's article, using current data, shows the situation has reversed in the last few years.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 3:09PM
Read some of the links I've provided, John. The situation slightly reversed during the recession, but now the trend looks like it's back in line with where it's been for the last 30 years.
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 5:59PM
Why don't you tell the rest of us, how you would do things, around here?
Obviously, you are Far Superior to our Founding Fathers, who were the Greatest Assemblage of Intellect, since the days when Socrates, Pathagria, Euclid, Hippocrates, and the rest of the Great Minds of Athens, got together.
But then again, in the words of The Great Al Sharpton -They were just a bunch of Greek Homos.
GTF outta here.
You're embarrassing yourself.
AGAIN.
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 11:39AM
But your first post shows the Bush tax cuts to be working. You know the cuts Obama didn't want to extend and the libs keep screaming are unproductive.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 11:41AM
Because of all the jobs the rich have created since 2010?
JD| 8.3.12 @ 11:54AM
Look at unemployment rates during the Bush+GOP congress years. They fell significantly. That the rate has doubled since Democrats took congress doesn't mean the cuts didn't work. It means other stronger factors are pushing the other way.
George S| 8.3.12 @ 11:50AM
The article is about refuting Obama's idea that the rich had things built for them by the middle class, using evidence that the rich are disproportionally funding government.
If you think 35% is too low of a rate... what should it be? 40%? 90%? 100%? More importantly, how did you arrive at that figure? And after you arrive at a figure, why would that figure be fair but a single percentage point above that be unfair?
Even if you tax everyone who makes over $200k a year at 100% it would only fund today's federal government until the first week of July.
That's why this is a spending issue and why government frantically waves their magic propaganda class warfare wand to distract from that fact. You cannot possibly think that our problems are from too little taxation?
JD| 8.3.12 @ 12:02PM
"I haven't seen Obama do anything that would hurt the rich. " -wow. Just... wow. I haven't seen Obama do anything that WOULDN'T hurt the rich!
"But despite that, the rich are getting richer." - not according to the CBO data in the article! Their income is down, and their EFFECTIVE taxes are as high as ever. You liberals keep pushing your lies long after they've been debunked.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 12:12PM
Read my comment at 10:25.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729
Here's a longer term trend for you. Debunk that, champ.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 12:26PM
That data ends in 2007. Right before the crash. Nice cherry-picking!
As the CBO data cited in this article states, as of 2009, income for the rich is back to the share of GDP that it was in the mid-1990s. There isn't complete data post-2009, but if you think the rich did better since, you'd best blame those who controlled government from 2009 on!
It is true that nominal income for the rich surged in the 1980s, but this was NOMINAL income. A key plank of the Reagan reforms was eliminating deductions and exclusions from the tax code. Money the rich made that never counted as income in the days of 70% tax brackets finally started counting. This meant their "income" appeared to surge, for tax purposes, even though they didn't make any more real money.
The Left ALWAYS starts from 1980 in its "income growth" analyses so that it can benefit from the misleading-ness of Reagan's elimination of exclusions.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 12:51PM
http://www.decisionsonevidence.....-recovery/
Here's the full study that chart is taken from if you're interested.
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez.....s-2010.pdf
JD| 8.3.12 @ 1:09PM
So... we're just going to not respond to counter-evidence and keep repeating our initial claim, then?
We know that unemployment continued to grow while the stock market recovered. We know that people sat on their unemployment benefits and other new handouts in 2010. We also know that the difference between 2010 and previous recoveries was that Democrats had total control of policy.
I have always said that Democratic policies increase inequality. What do you think you're proving?
At the same time, when you widen the time period being considered, you see different trends, and different causes. You thought the wider time period favored you when you took your half-truth numbers from 1979-2007. I explained, above, why you're wrong.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 2:36PM
What counter evidence? Two years in a recession? I've responded to that twice-the data indicates that 'trend' has already reversed. If you widen the trend, to say, the last 30 years, you see that it's consistent with an increasing concentration of wealth in the highest income bracket. All you've offered in rebuttal is an incoherent response about Reagan and his loopholes. Even assuming that is true, you claim the rich stopped hiding their income sometime during the Reagan years. The CBO data, whose information you find highly accurate between 2008 and 2009, indicates that income has become increasingly concentrated since the Reagan administration. It wasn't some one shot deal after Reagan eliminated the unspecified 'deductions and exclusions'. Your 'evidence' to the contrary is nonsense.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 2:52PM
My gosh, why write if you can't read?
The large majority of the spike from 1979-2009 occurred in the 1980s. It was not because the rich "stopped hiding income". It's because what was in plain sight all along, but had been excluded from taxable income by law, started counting!
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 3:02PM
Except the data I've provided doesn't show that. You just keep saying it and backing it up with nothing. Why don't you show me some numbers or stop wasting both our time?
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 6:04PM
Wow.
It's from Berkley.
That's a Joke, right?
JD| 8.3.12 @ 6:26PM
It doesn't matter where his "data" is from. What matters is whether it's accurate and whether it's complete. Today, DRed's preferred trick is to extrapolate flawed conclusions from limited data. His data shows a half-truth, and he fills in the blanks, then suggests that the data backs his filled-in blanks just as much as what it actually says.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 11:19PM
As opposed to your non-existent data from nowhere?
JD| 8.3.12 @ 12:04PM
You must have missed Sowell's column, which pointed to CBO tracking of SPECIFIC rich and showed that while DIFFERENT PEOPLE have high incomes in given years, if you track people over time, they're not richer.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.3.12 @ 12:13PM
DRed,
The report goes to 2009 because that's the last year that these groups have complete data, i.e. the same reason that the CBO just put out a report that goes up to 2009.
No doubt the top 1% did well in 2010, and they will be punished for it by our tax code.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 12:25PM
If that report had data from 2010 there's no way you would have used it, though. Because it looks like the data is going to show the long term economic trend towards increasing the concentration of income in a smaller slice of the population is back. Which is a very odd thing to have happening in a country funded in a way that embodies the "grand idea of Karl Marx."
And really, the issue is no that the top 1% did well in 2010. It's they're the only people who did well.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 12:31PM
Who controlled government in 2009 and 2010?
You're right, the issue is not that a group did well; it's that others did not. But whose fault is that? Perhaps those whose policies repress real growth?
As Sowell wrote on Tuesday, the highest earners aren't the same people from year to year. Track a given individual over time, and many of your arguments collapse.
You say it's odd that concentration of power could occur if a country embodies Marxism. I don't think that's odd at all. Concentration of power is THE inevitable result of Marxism! Quit clinging to the idea that liberal ideas always achieve their stated intention.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 2:53PM
So wait-let me see if I understand. You're now arguing that the increasing income concentration, which you don't admit is happening, is a bad thing, but it is happening, and it's the inevitable result of Obama's Marxist anti-rich class warfare, but it doesn't matter because the highest earners aren't the same people every year. That is quite a set of beliefs to hold in your head at one time.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 3:12PM
I'm saying that there was no significant change in income concentration during the 1980s - it was an accounting illusion.
I'm saying that the concentration in 2009 was the same as the mid 1990s (the CBO agrees).
I'm saying that any change since then came on the watch of a fully Democratic government.
And I'm saying (CBO agrees) that it's not the same people every year.
You make my statements appear contradictory by taking out the different dates. Once again, you can only argue with lies and straw men.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 4:04PM
I'm saying you haven't backed up a thing you've said with a shred of evidence. Again, show me some numbers or stop wasting my time.
And the most amusing thing about all this, is that you now are claiming that increasing inequality (which you started the day claiming did not exist) is bad while at the same time claiming that Obama's policies are bad because they have hurt the rich. So much for trickle down economics, eh? I suggest you get yourself to an OWS meeting-they agree with you, comrade.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 4:52PM
Sigh... what a waste of time.
YOU have no evidence for your claims, and my evidence is mostly right within your links. You can't read what I write, or choose not to. And every so often your brain resets and you start over with long-since-debunked straw men like this claim that anyone, anywhere on the right believes in anything like "trickle down". Trickling is YOUR "spread the wealth around" policy.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 5:59PM
I have read what you wrote. It makes no sense and you quite obviously can't back it up. Listen, the numbers I've given you very clearly do not support you. There's nothing in there about a magical Reagan accounting trick. There's nothing in there that shows wealth concentration only taking place during a Democratic administration. That's all just stuff you've made up. That's not having an argument.
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 6:06PM
Kinda like you saying that "Romney hasn't Paid Taxes for 10 Years".
I wish you were here, so I could Kick Your Ass.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 11:27PM
And I said that when, my friend? Come to NY anytime Timmy. I'll buy you a beer and we can talk.
TLP| 8.4.12 @ 8:44AM
Actually, you are correct.
It was your buddy - vtwin - who made that crack.
I stand corrected.
TLP| 8.4.12 @ 3:45PM
Maybe your not so bad, after all.
You're DELUSIONAL, but you're probably not a bad guy.
I'm a FOSTERS Guy, by the way.
Jack London| 8.3.12 @ 11:01AM
So we have an article of the stupidly obvious: government spending is funded from taxes. Coming soon from Kaminsky – why 2+2 =4.
Of course, he's also blind to the reasons why we have government, such as "profound thanks for those Americans who do things that Obama and friends could never do, who take risks that Warren and friends would never take."
We fund government precisely to to take risks that business won't do, such as early stage research. As usual with a Kaminsky article, if you reverse everything he says we have the truth.
And as for who funds _total_ government spending, only 27% is funded from federal income taxes.
When you look at the % of federal tax on categories taken over the last 50 years it is the payroll tax that has gone up a lot - corporation tax is way down and income tax as we know down too.
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 11:09AM
yada, yada, yada. You must work in the research industry. Your constantly harping about goverment should support research. You're beginning to sound like a one trick pony.
George Collins| 8.3.12 @ 11:13AM
Or a trick for Obama.
Occam's Tool| 8.3.12 @ 11:16AM
Research is a tiny portion of government spending. It is entitlements that are problematic.
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 11:42AM
Oc,
I realize that, just tired of hearing Jack scream about it constantly. He uses that one theme to back up all of his "Bigger goverment is good" talking points.
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.3.12 @ 11:11AM
Corporation taxes in the 1950s were far higher.
Pecos Pete| 8.3.12 @ 11:59AM
There was no world market, thus products produced in the USA were not only competitive in price, they were just about the only products available to consumers around the world. Today tis a different world and the USA's products are being priced out of the market principally by high taxes.
I know, I know I'm not supposed to bait the troll with facts. Couldn't help myself.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 11:59AM
The ratio of corporate to personal taxes is significant only in terms of its effect on competitive balance with other nations. The money all comes from the people, ultimately. One could just as easily complain that tariffs were way higher in the 1800s, during which we had no income tax.
The number that matters is federal revenue (and federal spending) as a percentage of GDP, and those numbers held remarkably steady from WWII until Clinton, when they went up to record levels.
George S| 8.3.12 @ 11:16AM
"We The People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Early stage research lab..."
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 11:18AM
What, governments take "risks"? Shazam! Excrement! Like Solyndra maybe? Like foreign aid to Pakistan for ASSISTING US WITH THE WAR ON TERROR [AND DIRECTING US TO OBL'S LOCATION]? Like the GSA spending $billions on conferences for their employees to CONNECT WITH THEIR INNER SELVES? Like directing their border agents to ignore federal immigration laws to facilitate Democrat Party votes? Like its Interior Dept refusing to grant oil and coal drilling permits when this country's energy bills are skyrocketing? Like the Justice Dept's filing a lawsuit to constrain military members from voting absentee [since they mostly vote Republican]? Are those the risks that government takes BY USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS??????
JD| 8.3.12 @ 11:55AM
Kaminsky needs to write articles saying that 2+2=4 because liberals are out there saying 2+2=5. Everything "obvious" in this article is being ignored, forgotten, or denied by mainstream liberalism today.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.3.12 @ 12:15PM
Couldn't have said it better myself, JD.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 12:38PM
Jack, this article and the CBO data it cites speak in terms of "effective" taxes. That's the sum total of ALL federal taxes - income, payroll, corporate, excise, etc.
Your liberal theology depends so strongly on its false vision of tax reality that your mind rejects conflicting facts - thus you cling to the "conservatives only consider income tax" talking point even when it's not true. We've never considered "only income tax". You just need to think we do, so that you can continue to think factoring in other taxes obliterates our arguments.
"We fund government precisely to to take risks that business won't do" - that has never been true for anyone but a small slice of liberalism. Even other liberals with disagree with your claim that government exists to take risks on our behalf.
No, government's purpose has always been law-enforcement and defense. That's all. Your idea is very new, historically speaking, and like many theories, doomed to fail. Of all of America's greatest advances, the only one truly attributable to the government is the atom bomb. Thank the liberal gods for that one!
spike59| 8.3.12 @ 4:18PM
Coming soon from Kaminsky – why 2+2 =4.
============================
that flies in the face of Obamanomics, Pelosi/Hoyer/Reid style: 2 +2 = 7.8 or so, if the 2+2 are welfare dollars
spike59| 8.3.12 @ 4:28PM
When you look at the % of federal tax on categories taken over the last 50 years it is the payroll tax that has gone up a lot - corporation tax is way down and income tax as we know down too.
=============================
and, strangely enough, the pile of $$$$ the government gets its hands on has exploded in size!!!! thanks for proving Regan right
Occam's Tool| 8.3.12 @ 11:14AM
I make my low top 1% by being on call 144 hours every 2 weeks, on average, when I don't have my vacations---on those pay periods, I am down usually by 16 hours of call. So, out of 336 hours every 2 weeks, I am on call or on site 224 hours.
And, based on what I know about people that make good money in any thing, I'm not unusual, DRed.
I employ a landscaping service in the summer and a snow shovelling company in the winter. I have paid all the Social security taxes possible for about 17 years out of my 19 years of practice (1 year spent in New Zealand, 1st year building up practice). It took me 13 years of college/med school/residency to be trained (1 did a year of a pediatrics internship) to get to the point where I could start the 19 years. I work as above. I think I earn my pay.
George S| 8.3.12 @ 11:25AM
Yeah but how much sales tax from beer and lottery tickets do you pay from your disability check? Huh? Huh? Whence flows the gifts of built things you didn't build.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 11:26AM
Don't you work for the government?
But regardless, I'm not saying you don't deserve to earn a lot of money.
Occam's Tool| 8.3.12 @ 11:15AM
The employment comment is to show what economicpprtunities I provide from my modestly 1% income.
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 11:29AM
Great editorial Ross! Even though I agree with 99% of what you rightfully say here [and I understand the point of your editorial that the rich pay proportionately higher percentages of income taxiation], I'll slightly disagree in that true middle income earners also pay the combination of all taxiation that supports government. They pay property, sales, death, fuel, etc taxes; all of which goes into the government's coffers. Again, my point is that the problem that the liberals and Democrats are painting is false, since the governmental defecit/debt problem is one of too much expense-spending and not the opposite revenue of who pays what and how much. All government is simply overblown and excessively spends the taxpayers' money on crapola and needs to be forced to seriously ratchet back its spending. When we allow these radicals to engage the conversation on the revenue side of the equation, we are playing by their dictated rules. We need to instead re-state the problem's issue as being solely governmental expense-spending reduction!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 11:31AM
PS: We need to define the issue as being simply one of.........GSA!!!!!!!!
Ross Kaminsky| 8.3.12 @ 12:16PM
OF,
It's true that they pay those things, but other than excise taxes, it is still reasonable to assume the higher earners pay much more, and don't forget about state income taxes as well which, in many states are even more punishing of success (proportionally) than are the federal tax rates.
DRed| 8.3.12 @ 1:03PM
http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf
If by 'many', you mean 'a minority', then it looks like you're correct. I guess it depends what many means.
"Our primary finding is that most state and local tax systems take a much greater share of income from middle- and low-income families than from the wealthy. That is, most state tax systems are regressive."
JD| 8.3.12 @ 1:16PM
Wow. Talk about hiding behind half-truths!
As the graph on your link clearly indicates, state and local governments fund themselves through sales and property taxes more than income taxes. Their income taxes are highly "progressive". But sales taxes and property taxes shouldn't be expected to have significant correlation to annual income. Heck, do you expect retired people to own no property and buy nothing?
You might as well try to correlate tax policy to estrogen level.
Ross clearly said "income" tax in his post, so it is your mistake, not his, in making the apples/oranges comparison.
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 1:41PM
Governmental taxiation [whether progressive or regressive] is more importantly EXCESSIVE!!!!
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 1:13PM
Ross, I'm simply trying to UP YUR ANTE regarding taxiation. For most of my adult life I've been anti-taxiation of any variety, sinc eI think that [like private industry] governmental financial belt-tightening is the only answer. The easiest thing for governments to do is RAISE TAXES as their solution to money problems, and I think that that has to stop. I'm with you 150% that the wealth class pays more than their fair share [I'd be in favor of substantially lowering their tax bills since they would INVEST their taxes saved in a MULTIPLICATION of income creation benefiting the economy in general], but I think additionally that taxiation in general is excessive. I'm hopeful that an elected Romney will use his professional business experience to DOWNSIZE GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING but who knows. We'll have to wait until November and see what he does if elected [if he's defeated, we're all toast]!!!!!!
Who Knows?| 8.3.12 @ 11:52AM
Deity bless Obama!
America in 2008 was like someone who “wanted it”, and chose BHO, who has given “it” to them---us---good and HARD, in both ends. He reminds me of a very adolescent joke from my youth---
A guy asks a girl for a quickie. She asks if it will hurt. He asks, “Did it?”
Or then there’s this one—
A whore serviced two men at once, front and back. One day, she was sick, so her husband tried to fill in for her.
The guy in back got in all right, but the guy in front yelled---back up, you’re coming through!
Who is Obama in this?
He’s certainly sticking it to us all, from every which way!
Yes, complacent and mostly satiated Americans had to get “it”, HARD, coming and going, in 2008, and Obama has proven to be a champion in the cause.
Thanks, B. Hussein for helping wake us up.
Oooo---it feels SO GOOD: to hurt, unto death.
nathan| 8.3.12 @ 11:54AM
I have a serious question for all of you. Here's the set up. Assume the following. In January, MR is the president, republicans have a working majority in the house, have a 54/46 majority in th senate. Functional control of the government between now and the midterms. So the questions to all of you is in the next to years, what do you expect to happen with those assumptions? Will ACA be repealed in whole or in part? Will any of the New Deal/Great Society programs including the medicare drug benefit be repealed, in whole or in part? (Bearing in mind that as Madison said all "benevolence" spending is unconstitutional.) Will the Patriot Act be eliminated? Will the NDAA language be repealed despite McCain's support for it barring SCOTUS ruling it unconstitutional which one court has already said it is.
There are certainly other things we can add but what really are all of you expecting?
To some extent these questions get to what really CAN be accomplished by the new administration and how "conservative" it really will be although clearly as we have seen, there is sharp disagreement here over how we define "conservative" on this site. Even if those assumptions stay valid for four years, again how much of any "conservative" agenda do you expect to happen, how much "roll back" gets done. Merely holding the line as republicans have done for 60 years accomplishes nothing but rebaselining for the next democrat.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 11:57AM
The answer is "not much". Democrats have proven their mastery of the filibuster, and they'll still control enough of the media and entertainment industries to poison the public against its own good. Conservative "gains" have always been small and tenuous, while liberal ones stick forever. It's the nature of entitlements.
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 6:19PM
Filibuster?
We don't need no Steenkin Filibuster
Reconciliation.
It's time to Play by Their Rules.
Pecos Pete| 8.3.12 @ 12:11PM
Romney should repeal 100% of the Executive Orders issued by Obama. Next, fire each and every one of the political appointees in the federal government. And third, appoint conservatives to head all federal agencies/departments. Romney could do these 3 things before the parties start on the day of his inauguration in January 2013.
The next day, approve the Keystone Pipeline.
On the third day sign the repeal legislation of ObamaCare.
On the fourth day, declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
On the fifth day, sign legislation extending the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanently.
On the sixth day, visit the Pentagon and declare that current members of the armed forces and all veterans are honored citizens and patriots. And, while at the Pentagon, issue an Executive Order requiring that the borders of the United States will, and shall be, protected by not only other agencies of the federal government but also the armed forces of the United States.
On the 7th day, go to Camp David and have an enjoyable day.
Mimi | 8.3.12 @ 12:53PM
Oh BABY...if only....!
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 6:27PM
The Keystone Pipeline is 2nd.
Right behind opening every area that we have, to Drilling.
Then, Keystone.
Then, reversing everyone of The Muslim's Executive Orders.
Then, eliminating everyone of The Muslim's Job Killing Regulations.
Then, Sealing the Border.
Then, throwing out the Muslim Huggers at NASA, and replacing them with people who will get us back in to Space.
Then, Rebuilding our Military, and building the Constellation Rocket.
And, so on, and so on, until we get this SHIP straightened out.
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 12:00PM
If Rombot wins, you can look forward to Grandma and Grandpa or your in-laws moving in with you. Where else will they go with no Medicare, except a voucher that won't even pay today's healthcare premium? In the street?
You can also put your kids to work at 16 - no need for college, you'll need them to work to bring in extra money.
You can forget about medical research, so be ready for the additional diseases you'll get and you'll not have anywhere to turn.
You can band together as a neighborhood and clean your streets and de-ice the roads, pick up your own garbage.
Make sure you have plenty of buckets on hand to put out the fires in your neighborhood. Make sure you leave time for that before you go to work 12 hour days to make an Indian or Chinese wage.
I could go on - but you get the picture. This is where we came from. Republican ideology will take us back there. But the Rockefellers, the Fords, the Vanderbilts - they'll be okey dokey. The rest of us will be screwed.
Pecos Pete| 8.3.12 @ 12:14PM
Violet: I can look forward to my children and grandchildren finding jobs and moving out of my home. I love 'em, but after awhile they get on my nerves.
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 1:23PM
You are a useful idiot.
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 1:37PM
You are a socialistic DA that AK's this domestic terrorist @1600!!!!!!!!
TLP| 8.3.12 @ 6:30PM
You've gotta be kidding.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 12:20PM
There is no surer proof that a person's side is wrong than that he dedicates himself in all conversation to lying about his opponents.
George S| 8.3.12 @ 12:21PM
Grandma and Grandpa? Funny, a self-described financially successful (adult) businessman would most likely reference a mother and father as the elderly family members.
What's wrong with working at 16? I did. My father appreciated the extra money. He worked a job in the day and ran a small business at night. Maybe this is the origin of my conservative philosophy and love of country for I saw the results of my father's hard work.
Medical research will still be done without government's help when there is money to be made.
Streets, garbage, fire fighting are local issues.
We cannot make Chinese wages because the cost of complying with labor laws make it impossible. So the only choice we have is NOT to make those products to spare us the indignity of Chinese wages.
The Rockefellers, the Fords, the Vanderbilts have done more for your well being than any government official or elected office holder.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.3.12 @ 12:22PM
What you forget, Purp, as always, is that with the health insurance reforms supported by Republicans, the price of insurance and perhaps of health care itself will come down.
You speak as if America was always the Nanny State it is now. It wasn't and it did fine before we had all this government interference in private contracts.
By the way, what do police and fire have to do with FEDERAL taxes?
JD| 8.3.12 @ 12:44PM
He's ranging into full "non-liberal == anarchist" mode now. Extra-heavy on the straw men, which is why I posted the reply I did.
But it's also a fine point that liberalism begets liberalism. They tax, regulate, and subsidize, until no one can compete unless he takes his "share" of the social welfare, then say "Look, you depend on social welfare! Thank us, and pay more taxes!"
I used to say "Liberal economic policies are attempts to solve the problems caused by liberal economic policies." Now I say "Liberal economic policies exist to justify liberal economic policies". It's like being done a favor by the mob - their purpose is to own you for the rest of your life.
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 7:38PM
So all you got is that I have circular reasoning? That's it? Okay, you lose.
The thing I find quite interesting and it would be funny if not that sad, are these facts:
1) 20% of the top earners pay 95% of the Federal income tax
2) That means the bottom 80% pays 5% of the Federal income tax
3) Most of you are in the bottom 80% of earners, you aren't paying much in income tax (although you can tell me where you fit)
4) You moan and groan about how raising taxes on the wealthy is a bad idea - do you not realize if not on them, all that's left is YOUR own taxes will be raised? Especially in Romney's Tax Plan that has been scored this week by the Tax Policy Institute, a think tank that Romney himself said was fair and impartial (until now, of course - Now it's the dreaded "liberal" group)
"individual income tax change that incorporates
the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates
substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax
breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and
increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers."
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org.....Reform.pdf
merlin| 8.4.12 @ 5:35AM
Purp,
5) You seemed to have missed the possibility that the size and cost of the federal government could be greatly reduced. It will have to be, one way or another.
Oldefarte| 8.4.12 @ 1:02PM
No DA, shut your ignorant pie-hole and open those things to either side of your eyeballs. Defecit/debt reduction is accompolished in two ["2"] ways: [1] raise taxes/revenue and [2] eliminate/reduce expenses/liabalities. You radicals ie Democrats always want #1 and to ignore #2. Eliminate/reduce foreign aid, food stamps, Medicaid, farm aid, housing/rental allowances, GSA, TSA, DOEnergy and Education, DOJ [at least its corrupted leadership], free school meals and bus transportation, DOI, etc and wallaw, defecit reduction is at hand!!!!!!!!!
Cat Shot| 8.3.12 @ 12:54PM
I'm with you all the way Purpster - God forbid that we should develop any self reliance.
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 1:33PM
First, if you are against government, that includes bloated state worker rolls, does it not? Police, Fire, Teachers, etc.
Second, you ignore why Social Security and Medicare were created in the first place.
Third, you ignore the beginnings of Soc Sec and Medicare just as you have ignored the mostly Republican promoted (by the Heritage Foundation), market-based (mandate included, Private insurance exchanges) healthcare reform package reason for being. The only real thing missing from the ACA is the tort reform to reduce medical malpractice costs. That can still be done.
Fourth - After paying for social security and medicare all their lives, I would imagine Seniors would be offended by you referring to their insurance programs "the Nanny State".
Fifth - Labor Laws? What labor laws. Without a union you are only entitled to a minimum wage. Although there are some States that have various additions, like 7 States require 1 day of rest/week. And most require a lunch and breaks. But that's it. Only if you are in a union are employers required to give anything more. We've taken paid vacation, sick pay, disability pay, life insurance and health insurance, pension programs for granted so long, we don't even know they can be gone tomorrow - legally.
Lower wages are first - benefits will be next, if we don't stop the Corporate masters from destroying this country in the name of profit above all else.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 1:41PM
Straw. Man. All the way.
First, we are not against government. We are against government exceeding its mandate. You know that, but you lie.
Second, we do not ignore why Social Security and Medicare were created in the first place. They were bad ideas to solve problems created by prior liberal economic policies, such as the monetary and bank policies of the 1920s.
Third, you do not tell us what we stand for. Just because you found someone claiming to be a Republican and bastardized his idea doesn't mean all of us own your bastardized idea. You also fail to distinguish "market" from "free market." Technically, if you buy something because I put a gun to your head, the gun is a market force. But it's not free!
Fourth, you play into exactly what I said. Your justifications for your programs are your programs.
Fifth, we have tons of labor protections without unions. The best job market in America now is high-end software development, and there has never been a union in the history of that industry! You speak of taking things for granted, but it is you who take for granted that jobs will always be there no matter how much you screw over the employers. And you are already being proven wrong!
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 7:48PM
5) You do not have the labor protections that you think you do.
You are wrong about the union in the software industry. There is an IBM union that is part of the AFL-CIO. But generally, they are highly paid jobs and benefits, not requiring a union. That is changing with off-shoring of white collar jobs - and you can take that to the bank.
4) Useless comment
3) You don't know that the Heritage Foundation is a Republican Think tank that came up with and supported the individual mandate in the 1990's? Even Senators like Charles Grassley and Orrin Hatch supported it then.
2) Tell your parents and grandparents what bad ideas Social Security and Medicare were ... you are clueless about how great both have been in keeping our Seniors largely out of poverty. They might remember the days BEFORE both - you don't obviously.
1) Of course you are against government. But you are willing to admit it. You want to elect people that tell you what you want to hear, but time after time after time, they don't do what they say they will - and you keep voting for them, like little sheep to the slaughter.
Oldefarte| 8.4.12 @ 12:49PM
[1]you're correct, government is bloated [2] SS/Medicare were created for DA's who can save income/buy insurance on their own, but after paying a lifetime of premiums, damned straight we'll take advantage of same [3] Labor unions only enrich the thugs operating same, and pee-pee on the workers [follow what will happen to San Bernadino's labory unionized workers from bankruptcy]. Companies will pay [due to supply & demand for labor] market wages, but will not pay for DA's who can't screw in a light bulb unless their covered by a union of course!!!!!!!!
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 12:44PM
"The central fact of the Obama campaign is that they have not yet made a case for re-election. They haven't come up with a reasoned argument in common words that can be repeated by normal people. Ask an Obama supporter to boil it all down and he'll flail around and then say: "But Romney is awful" or "The Republicans are bad."
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 1:37PM
Neither has the Romney campaign except "I'm not Obama" and "Trust me".
But I can tell you plenty reasoned argument why Obama should be President and not Romney.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 1:44PM
Really? Really? You're going there?
Obama had no qualifications at all, and no ideas either. His campaign promises were all too vague to mean anything (and even then he couldn't keep them). Romney's track record alone is more reason to vote for him than Obama ever gave us. Obama's self-issued job title (community organizer) isn't even a real thing!
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 2:28PM
Track record? What track record?
JD| 8.3.12 @ 2:54PM
Ha! Figures. To you, the only "track record" that's anything is a record of being a liberal politician. Being in business, succeeding in business, or experiencing the real world don't count to you, except for your quixotic belief that a worthy leader must experience poverty at some point in his life.
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 3:17PM
You can't answer the question either I see. We've already had one MBA President (that's Masters in Business Administration) - No thank you.
We don't need GW Bush again.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 4:54PM
Wow. I say "business experience" and you read "has a piece of paper from a liberal school saying he knows something about business".
Not even close to being the same thing.
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 7:52PM
JD - pray tell - what business experience does Romney have that is leveragable to being President.
Remember, only 1 person running for president has experience of being President - and it isn't Mitt the Twit. The bar for him is higher than a sitting President. He can't even perform on his International vacation - he dissed our allies, shat on the London Olympics and ran home, tail between his legs.
TLP| 8.4.12 @ 8:49AM
He thinks that you mean - "Romney was on a Track Team."
He wants to know what Track Records he has.
Seriously.
He's that Stupid.
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 2:02PM
Funny, I find very little data on Obamas re-election site that goes into details. Romney's site has plenty to read and not just fluff.
But you were soaying you could give plenty of reasoned arguments so, I'm listening.
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 2:07PM
Should me. "you were saying".
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.3.12 @ 2:08PM
Well, you sanctimonious troll, I'm waiting. ***crickets***
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 3:38PM
Curtis,
Me or Purp? If Purp I think we will both be waiting a long time. Say did you know that Purp got kicked out of the Air Force for asking the pilots if he could play with their joystick?
Harry Reid told me so it must be true! If not, Purp needs to prove otherwise.
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.3.12 @ 4:13PM
This comment was for Perp. Sorry, I should have dropped that scumbag's moniker in my post.
A reasoned argument for the most Anti-American president in US history from our only resident rigidly ideological, mentally deficient welfare dependent troll? Keep dreamin' while the crickets chirp outside the window.
CJW| 8.3.12 @ 4:32PM
Obamaboy purpie
If you can tell us" plenty reasoned arguments," (English is not your strong suit), then why have you not?
Oldefarte| 8.4.12 @ 12:54PM
I'll bet you can [why he "should be President"], ie to destoy this country, to institute socialistic/Marxist/Sharia Law principles, to destroy domestic oil drilling/coal mining, to eliminate immigration laws legislated by congress, to facilitate the overthrow of the entire ME in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, to install the NBPP as security at all polling stations, etc. Did I miss anything??????
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 1:27PM
As a Grandpa colletcing SS [which I paid for], Obama gutted same by $500 million to fund his WELFARECARE which shifts Medicare to the SNOTNOSERS who haven't contributed-paid JS toward same. Those 16 years old working? Great, since same will leave less wasteful time for them to toke a joint, bang Suzie the Dimwit and protest against Scott Walker. Medical research will be done privately if potentially profitable. Many of us seniors NOW are forced to pick up the garbage that the SNOTNOSERS throw into the street from their vehicles, so what else is new? "Go to work 12 hour days"? Apparently you live under a rock since their are no jobs today period thanks to Obama/Democrats, and if Romney is elected, the jobs will return and pay market wages equal to demand and supply of labor principles, NOT the corruptable labor union excessive wage rates that have causes jobs to go to now the Chinese and Indians. Go spread your BS somewhere else, since it ain't sticking here!!!!!!!!
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 1:40PM
It was 500 Billion Gramps. Did you pay more? Has anything changed for you? No, it hasn't.
The public Universities and NIH and NSF do gobs of medical research that private companies leverage to produce products. They don't do it alone. Oh, I should say "They don't build it alone".
If jobs will come back from China and India under RomBot, why did they go there under Bush in the first place?
Unfortunately, you have a lot of talking points, but mostly those dogs won't hunt, Sunshine.
CJW| 8.3.12 @ 4:30PM
Obamaboy purpie
You do know that Rocklefeller is the Dem senator from West Virginia? You forgot the Kennedys, Kerry-Heinz, Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid and the rest of the limousine liberals who will be ok.
If you are in the top 1% as you claim, how will yo be screwed?
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 7:55PM
OMG - how stupid. You don't know that John D. Rockefeller created the Rockefeller fortune - over 100 years ago?
I don't feel comfortable in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. So I won't continue to tear you to shreds.
CJW| 8.3.12 @ 10:03PM
Obamaboy purpie
Hey idiot, you do know that John D Rockefeller died and therefore how can he be OK today? That was the premise of your silly argument. But, Jay Rockefeller, the Dem senator, is alive. Are you really this stupid? Not even Obama can affect John Rockefeller, moron.
What can we expect from a $10 an hour troll.
Sounds like your are looking to cut and run because you cannot answer my questions or respond in any intelligent manner.
vtwin| 8.3.12 @ 12:59PM
“You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities.” –Mitt Romney
“I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the bank, the investors. There is no question your mom and dad, your school teachers. The people who provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help.” –Mitt Romney
JD| 8.3.12 @ 1:17PM
There is a huge difference between giving appropriate verbal kudos vs trying to establish a mandate for forcible repossession of winnings.
Oldefarte| 8.3.12 @ 1:32PM
"Olympians" aren't the business owners that Obama falsely referred to. Parents, banks, investors, school teachers aren't the GOVERNMENT, which doesn't help anyone, especially business owners [but they do TAX THEM TO DEATH]!!!!!!!!
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 1:41PM
What?
Oldefarte| 8.4.12 @ 12:40PM
It should be fairly simple even to a DA!!!!!!
George S| 8.3.12 @ 2:11PM
You have to look at it in perspective. Romney approaches it from the family, friends and community aspect where love of God, country and family are core values. Obama approaches it from the statist point of view: you are nothing but for the benevolence of government.
Remember his 2008 election victory speech? He pushed his wife and daughters back stage so he could have the limelight to himself.
L'etat c'est moi.
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 2:33PM
Have you ever listened to an Obama speech? He talks all about family, God, country and family values. Hard work, working for yourself, entrepreneurs and small business. The difference is that his approach is more balanced. Yes, you do it on your own, but you're not all alone.
Let Romney try running Bain in Somalia ... see how much money he makes. What we have around us lifts us all. You aren't proud of America for that?
JD| 8.3.12 @ 2:57PM
The ONLY reason running a company would be harder in Somalia is lack of that one aspect of government that liberals want to cut - security. Lack of security prevents all other things from happening, including infrastructure and education.
As for Obama's speeches, he throws in buzz-words, because he is a buzz-word. Stringing words together means nothing if they don't correlate with actions.
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 3:14PM
Oh, really? They have all the roads, sewers, water, electricity, bridges, ports, airports, housing, courts, police, firemen - in short all the civilization around them that they need?
Bush provided nothing but contracts and tax cuts to the rich, Obama is rebuilding America, Romney will provide nothing but giving goodies to the rich.
John Navratil| 8.3.12 @ 4:09PM
Purp,
I'm not rich and the tax cuts helped me to the tune of a couple of thousand per. I spent that money educating my kids; an education I could not get for them in Houston public schools even though I pay $4,000 per year to "educate" other's kids.
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 7:56PM
You aren't alone paying for education of other kids. I just don't hold it against anyone, knowing that everyone being educated produces a better society for all of us to live in - including my kids.
I guess you don't see it that way, huh?
spike59| 8.3.12 @ 4:25PM
Bush provided nothing but contracts and tax cuts to the rich
---------------------
bush provided tax cuts to EVERY wage earner; ObaMao is all about providing gifts to work-avoiders and contracts to cronies...
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 7:58PM
Spike - Really? 98% of American taxpayers would keep their tax cuts under Obama's plan, as well as 97% of small business owners - but Republicans voted against it.
Now, why do you think that is? Can you possibly figure it out on your own?
JD| 8.3.12 @ 4:56PM
I wrote "Lack of security prevents all other things from happening, including infrastructure and education."
Purp wrote "Oh, really? They have all the roads, sewers, water, electricity, bridges, ports, airports, housing, courts, police, firemen - in short all the civilization around them that they need?"
A sticker for the first person to explain what Purp did wrong!
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 5:37PM
Drew breath?
Drunken Sailor| 8.3.12 @ 3:43PM
"He talks all about."
Yep I agree he talks all about. What has he done for them to improve their situation? So far only 29% think he is steering the country in the right direction.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....rong_track
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 8:01PM
Unfortunately, that polling is dated -
Today it's 32% and doesn't reflect on the President himself - much as you would like it to. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
In fact the President's lead grew while RomBot was on his failed, miserable or as Charles Krauthammer says "incomprehensible" European vacation.
Drunken Sailor| 8.4.12 @ 12:23PM
Dated? You didn't even look did you. It ws dated Aug 01 2012.
Epic Fail.
BackToBasics| 8.3.12 @ 6:56PM
In his mind and the mind of most democrat leaders, there really is no difference between the statements, "You didn't build that" and and all-inclusive, "You didn't earn that."
After eviscerating small businesses, the next step will be to confiscate "tax deferred" retirement accounts. After all, in their minds, they are tax deferred so the government has a right to it.
After that increased taxes on every working person's earnings to the point that working people will be no better than slaves. Now slavery, that is something we've "earned" in Obam's mind.
Purp| 8.3.12 @ 8:03PM
No evisceration has occurred to small business - they have been helped immensely under Obama.
The rest of your comment is speculative bs .. so enjoy your own little world.
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.4.12 @ 12:55AM
Liar. From 2008 until now the US lost 200,000 small businesses. And Obama has done everything that he can to tank the economy further with high taxation, rule by executive fiat, and unsustainable spending. Yet his minions, even those paid minimum wage to troll blogs, can only repeat the mantra that Obama is helping.
I for one can't wait to see the US shove a boot up Obama's ass in November.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....sus-shows/
BackToBasics| 8.3.12 @ 9:41PM
Thank you, I will enjoy it. I will also enjoy my speculations that are based both on history and knowing enough about how power-hungry yet insecure leftstist governments see freedom as a threat. My speculations are a warning. The fact that you consider them to be BS is not surprising in the least.
Leftists's have speculative fantasies that a large government should be the arbiter of fairness and is capable of meeting out near perfect equality.
We are equal before God in our humanness and our souls, not in our gifts. Our gifts and differences in temporal things is not something the government should try to control in the all-powerful ways the leftists demand.
I'll take my view and along with it the desire for a small and freedom-loving government over the desire for a huge and totalitarian government anyday.
BackToBasics| 8.3.12 @ 9:42PM
Last somment was to Purp.
BackToBasics| 8.3.12 @ 9:47PM
"And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey" Matthew 25:15 - Even Jesus acknowledged that we all have differing gifts and abilities.
We will be rewarded or not by God according to what we do with our gifts, including finances, not based on a wishful equality of them. This is not government's business.
TinaB| 8.5.12 @ 8:23AM
I don't know if you'll see this, B to B, but I find joy in your honest postings, and appropriate use of the Scriptures. I praise God for you.
merlin| 8.4.12 @ 5:19AM
Production is wealth.
Buck Ofama| 8.5.12 @ 6:43AM
This is a nice editorial, but let's be honest: Ovomit is nothing but an ignorant commie c0cksucker, and the sooner we're rid of this pile of dog shit, the sooner the economy will rebound.
Craigpurcell| 8.5.12 @ 6:34PM
Don't believe everything you read.