The American Spectator : Understanding the Left's Demands on What Others Own

Text Size

The Tax and Spend Spectator

Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own

By J.T. Young on 3.13.13 @ 6:08AM

What it can’t control the left will call unfair and undemocratic.

The Left’s inherent challenge is justifying their claim to what others own. This challenge arises from the contradiction between the Left’s motivating ideology and the failure of its economic application. Understanding this inevitable contradiction and the necessity it creates enables us to understand everything else the Left think, say, and do.

Nowhere is the hypocrisy of accusing others of one’s own greatest fault clearer than with the Left. The accusation in question is materialism — the charge with which they seek to indict capitalism. Yet, it is the Left themselves who are utterly captivated and defined by material production.

If there is a political embodiment of the ethos of greed, it is not capitalism, but socialism, where everything is reduced to no more than a means to that society’s self-professed end: material production. While Marx explicitly made this the basis of everything — not only in socialist and communist societies, but all human history — it is no less the implicit motivator of the rest of the Left.

However it is perhaps history’s greatest irony that the Left consciously choose to eschew capitalism — history’s most efficient means of producing the material resources they require. The Left deny the equity of any distribution of resources that they do not control. Capitalism is therefore the most egregious violation of their sense of fairness, because it is premised on a lack of control — i.e., a free market.

As a result all Leftist systems are rooted in a profound and insoluble contradiction: an ideology of producing a materially superior society that is doomed in practice to be a materially inferior one.

In order to compensate for their innate material deficiency, all Leftist systems must have two things: access to others’ resources and a means of enforcing others to participate in a suboptimal economic system. As history has repeatedly shown, people will not acquiesce to either willingly for long.

The necessity to enforce participation requires a strong state. Again, in contradiction to Marx’s assertion that under communism society would be classless and the need for a state to enforce class rule would disappear, just the opposite occurs. The Leftist system can only exist be force.

Because the disparity between its economic system’s failure and capitalism’s success grows, the Leftist state must expropriate at increasing rates.

Others’ greater resources are also an implicit condemnation of the Leftist system — a living refutation of its fallacies. Even if redistribution were not part of the Left’s ideology, it would have to be part of its practical application.

The growing gap between the Left’s failure and capitalism’s success — and its citizens’ desire to gain access to the latter — requires ever greater levels of state interference in the lives of its citizens.

To obtain access to the resources it needs from its citizens, the Leftist state must justify a greater claim to them. For this reason, traditional property rights can not and do not exist in socialist states. Nor can a socialist state be founded on negative rights — as was the United States by our Constitution — by which a citizen is assured protection from state encroachment.

State encroachment is elemental to the Left’s state model. Accordingly, their model is founded on positive rights — the citizen being given “rights” to things, which the socialist society is then justified to obtain for the citizen from others. In the Left’s model, society’s rights thereby supersede the citizen’s and the state maintains an eminent domain over them.

There is a reason why no truly socialist state — or even an attempt a truly Leftist system within in a capitalist nation — has survived for very long, and none without oppression. The state must compensate for what its economic system cannot provide. It can only do this by expropriating its citizens — of their property and even their labor.

While the economic necessity of this is relatively easy to see, the citizen’s subservient relationship to the Leftist state does not stop at economics. Because the state must have access to its citizens’ resources, its entire foundation rests on its citizens’ inferior position to it. The citizen serves the Left’s state — the very reverse of the relationship that our founders envisioned for America.

Thus everything the Left thinks, says, and does must ultimately return to its self-inflicted economic necessity and its endemic need to create an ideology and mechanism of expropriation to address that necessity.

What starts as a denial of an individual’s property rights, comes to extend far more broadly — to a denial of an individual’s property of rights at all.

About the Author

J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (205) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

homme nike air max BW | 3.13.13 @ 6:38AM

If there is a political embodiment of the ethos of greed, it is not capitalism, but socialism, where everything is reduced to no more than a means to that society’s self-professed end: material production. While Marx explicitly www.shoxinfr.com/nike-shox-r3-c-8.html made this the basis of everything — not only in socialist and communist societies, but all human history — it is no less the implicit motivator of the rest of the Left.

AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.13.13 @ 11:18AM

Arnie, you're not a pighead such as these ladies and gentlemonsters; tell me, is the follwing a good resume'?:

"J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004..."

JT was active when the Rove-Cheney administration began bloating the state to heights FDR never dreamed of-- to heights Carter never dreamed of.

AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.13.13 @ 11:25AM

... I hasten to add JT's piece is not mistaken as far as it goes. What he leaves out, Arnie, is that they want us to pay for their now hopeless foreign policy. Ashcanistan is a total loss. Victor Davis Hansen said the Arab Spring owes thanks to George W. Bush-- but when the Arab Spring doesn't go America's way, he changes his tune.

davidh| 3.13.13 @ 1:21PM

What is interesting is Obama’s concept of “fair share”.

1. Obama-Care hits the middle class the hardest
2. Payroll tax hits the middle class the hardest
3. Printing money hits the middle class the hardest (inflation)
4. The truly rich have offshore accounts and pay no taxes
5. Printing money goes to the rich and into equities
6. The poor are getting their additional stuff from the middle class
7. The rich are not impacted
8. The middle class is getting killed by this transfer

It is not a transfer between rich and poor. It is a transfer between middle class and poor.

The Republicans help the rich too. But the middle class is paying everything Obama is doing through inflation, income taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes and Obama-Care taxes.

Obama is a genius to convince so many that the rich will pay for all this help going to the poor.

davidh| 3.13.13 @ 1:54PM

To American Spectator

Make this line the mantra for all conservatives and you will win this debate:

“It is not a transfer between rich and poor. It is a transfer between middle class and poor.”

davidh| 3.13.13 @ 2:46PM

So Obama wins all the way around with his strategy of the middle class transfer to the poor:

1. Obama gets 90+% of the poor vote
2. Poor benefits with 50 million on food stamps
3. Obama keeps spending on defense, and everything else, making Washington the emerald city, richest city in USA
4. The rich are not hurt at all by payroll taxes, which by the way are spent and are in the general fund
5. A few hundred a month increase means nothing to the rich for health care, but it’s a big bite for the middle class.
6. Interest rates at zero help the rich, but gas has doubled, a big mac is now $4.50 etc. Inflation hurts the middle class the most. The rich pay a small % on necessities.

So the class warfare is a ruse. The plan is to get the middle class to pay for the gravy train for Obama’s constituency.

Obama’s constituency:
1. The poor and non-white including Hispanics
2. Unions
3. Gays
4. East and west coast liberals
5. The 50 million on food stamps
6. The rich who realize that they are not paying for this transfer and like it
7. All those that believe that the rich will pay and they will not, leaving their future government benefits intact and their current incomes untouched.
This is a brilliant strategy by Obama. Brilliant

davidh| 3.13.13 @ 3:01PM

And Obama and his minions repeat this phase repeatedly:

Every democrat’s talking point.
We need to strengthen and grow the middle class.
We need to strengthen and grow the middle class.
We need to strengthen and grow the middle class.

Exactly the opposite is true. The middle class is being gutted by his strategy.

Transfer of wealth is from the middle class to the poor. The middle class feeds the beast.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 3:08PM

davidh, the middle class was gutted BEFORE Obama came to power.

It was the trickle down, deregulation, anti unionism of Reagan and the conservative movement that gutted the middle class.

There is also another factor that has contributed to it. Free trade and the growing influence of corporations on Washington's policy. Both parties are to blame for that.

davidh| 3.13.13 @ 3:19PM

Obama is brilliant though. He has convinced millions of Americans that he is defending the middle class. This is amazing.

Printing money to cover the deficit is killing the middle class. The payroll tax is killing the middle class.
Increasing health premiums will kill the middle class.

Maybe a few million poor will now get health care. Maybe 50 million now get food stamps. And yes Washington is now the “Rome”, the “Emerald City” and those tapped into this gravy train are getting wealthy as we write here.

But the rich are not paying for this, the middle class are. And if this story is told Obama will be done

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 7:31AM

Hmmm, many of those European social democracies sure are freer than the U.S. Plus, the median Swede, Norwegian, Swiss etc.. has been richer than the median Texan or Mississipian for decades. The European states have healthier populations, safer populations, more educated populations...well, you guys get the point.

But I admit. Texas is free in the sense one can own 100 semi automatics and be dumb as rocks at the same time, no problem. Freedom!!

SFCMikeJ| 3.13.13 @ 8:10AM

Move

Mike Johnston
SFC, USA (RET)

Moe Blotz| 3.13.13 @ 8:48AM

Thank you for your service to your country Sgt. Johnston. Your suggestion to Arnie to "move" would either relocate him to another Euro-socialist paradise or to dumb-rock country. The doofus sits in Froggy Land and takes his pot shots at Americans via this site, whilst working on behalf of Organising for Action.

Al Adab| 3.13.13 @ 12:26PM

I'll contribute to his plane fare.

CJW| 3.13.13 @ 12:53PM

Al Adab
Purpie/arnie/vtwin/commie jackj do not need plane fare, more like bus fare to Canada or a fast boat ride to Cuba, since "it" most probably resides here in the USA, as parasites sponging off the taxpayers.

Grzmlyk| 3.13.13 @ 1:45PM

I suggest we simply subject this single pathological organism with many names (Arnie being the mindless cog of the moment) to the life it is intent on subjecting us to.

There are only four possible things that motivate extreme left-wing whack jobs like Arnie (et al): Greed, vanity, laziness or nihilism.

Does it really matter which it is in Arnie's case? Nah. All roads lead to power for liberals, and power is what they want. Power to make others do their bidding at the point of a gun. This is the terminus no matter which flavor of thieving progressive you are.

And it's so easy to rejoice in naked power when you're on the side of the guy pointing the gun.

It changes significantly when you are staring down the barrel.

Al Adab| 3.13.13 @ 2:04PM

Thanks Grz, always good to see you in the thread.

irish19| 3.13.13 @ 1:05PM

Actually, I think (and I could be wrong) Arnie has stated that he already lives somewhere in Europe.
His comments about things here can be mostly discounted.

Al Adab| 3.13.13 @ 1:37PM

If true that is simply another reason to discount his views.

Grzmlyk| 3.13.13 @ 1:53PM

He's simply Comrade 214,435,266.

He's indistinguishable from Comrade 214,435,265 or Comrade 214,435,267.

That's a liberal's courage for you - spout the same dogma all of your friends, all of your colleagues, all of your news sites, all of your favorite talking heads are spouting with no deviation whatsoever and pat yourself on the head for being a real thinker.

Arnie is simply a fungible gear in a machine he doesn't comprehend. As long as he's oiled every now and then, he's happy.

It's called "useful idiot."

Anthony| 3.13.13 @ 4:42PM

Well vtwin, our Resident Village Idiot #2, outdid himself yesterday in attempting to defend our short pants wearing Muslim Marxist president, now into his 5 th year of economic chaos, by of course, blaming Bush.
When challenged, VI#2 came up with the clever reparte that we still blame the Japanese for Dec 7th 1941, ipso facto, we can still blame Bush for the economy.
Only a numbnut could conflate a single static event with a dynamic flowing economy, which, by the way, Obozo said he would fix in 4 years or didn't deserve to be re-elected.
So according to vtwin, since in May 1942 FDR had Japanese-Americans held in prison camps, Japanese-Americans are not to be held responsible for their plight going forward.
Ain't it great being a leftist??? Why, any idiot can be one, oh yeah, that's the point isn't it, duh!!!

TruSkeptik| 3.13.13 @ 8:27AM

You do not understand "freedom" I'm afraid. How could you possibly show that "many of those European social democracies sure are freer than the U.S."? It is one thing to write it anonymously here, but something else entirely to prove it. I personally don't see how paying the overwhelming majority of one's income to a federal government, which then doles it out as it sees fit (think, purchasing votes, etc.) is any any sense "freedom". And, for one so obviously enlightened, how do you justify characterizing the population of Texas as "dumb as rocks"? I think anyone who reads your post is justified in questioning not only your intelligence, but your sanity.

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 10:02AM

"I personally don't see how paying the overwhelming majority of one's income to a federal government"

In which countries do you pay this?

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 10:58AM

Well lets see, how about we use the countries Arnie suggested.

Sweden Income tax 57.7 and up plus a 25% VAT.

Norway Income Tax 40% plus a 25% VAT

The best of the bunch
Switzerland Income Tax 22.4 to 42.2 plus a 8% and up VAT.

And just for fun.
France 40% plus a VAT of 19.60%
UK 50% and up plus a VAT of 17.5% and higher.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 11:34AM

Careful Drunken sailor. You have a habit, in a slippery kind of way, of saying only the TOP tax rates in those countries.

Many of the middle class in Europe pay similiar income taxes to the middle class in the States.

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 12:18PM

Seeing how it is a progressive system in most countries why wouldn't I post the top rates? Isn't that what you want to take our country to?

I post the rates I find. Would you prefer I show where some countries such as Italy tax everyone?
My, how progressive of them. Are you saying we should do the same here so everyone has skin in the game.

Make up my mind, you guys scream we need to raise our taxes on the wealthy and then you say I only post the highest tax rates of countries you bring up.

irish19| 3.13.13 @ 1:11PM

If everyone had some skin (i.e. taxes) in the game, I expect we'd see spending on foolishness go away in pretty short order.

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 1:47PM

I agree Irish, was baiting Arnie.

George S| 3.13.13 @ 11:35AM

The US of A.

Income tax federal, income tax state (most), income tax city (in some cases). Property taxes (on NET income). Gasoline taxes.

Medicare taxes.

Social security taxes.

Sales taxes.

Taxes and surcharges on: medicines, vaccines, cable TV, electric bills, gas bills, cell phone bills, cigarettes, liquor, internet service, airline tickets, hotel rooms, auto insurance premiums, health insurance premiums, ATM debit fees, vehicle registration, music CD's, tires, firearms, ammunition... and on imported textiles, food, automobiles, appliances, hardware...

Throw in parking tickets and moving violations (each with another surcharge tacked on), health codes, fire codes, building codes, and other assorted fines and penalties on businesses who then fold that into the price you wind up paying.

That is maybe... 80 cents on the dollar all added up?

vtwin| 3.13.13 @ 11:41AM

Rates are much lower in the United States. For example; Romney made $42.7 million in 2 years and paid an average 14.5% in federal income taxes over those two years.

But then neither Sweden nor Norway debt is near 100% of GDP.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/2...../index.htm

George S| 3.13.13 @ 11:47AM

So Romney paid over 6 million in taxes is what you're saying. Why isn't he praised for that since the average taxpayer pays around $10 thousand in federal taxes and gets the same benefits as Romney, not less. Besides, without the Romneys there would be no social security and Medicare. The Congress spent all that money long ago.

Thank the guy; instead you make the author's point.

Al Adab| 3.13.13 @ 12:28PM

Excuse me gentlemen, but why do we think we should tax incomes in the first place. Is not a persons wealth and income their property? By what possible moral justification can a government decide who has too much and who needs to be forced to give their property to others whom the government designates?

vtwin| 3.13.13 @ 1:17PM

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Al Adab| 3.13.13 @ 1:40PM

So?Another lefty. Would you quote Calhoun if he served your purpose? And however, many taxes are not confiscation of property. Excise taxes and other consumption based taxes are taxation by choice in that only consumption not income is taxed.

jothepro| 3.13.13 @ 2:12PM

Oliver Wendell Holmes was a communist asshole....asshole

Grzmlyk| 3.13.13 @ 2:25PM

Ah, that old chestnut. Thank you for not distinguishing between capital gains taxes and income taxes. They are actually different - capital gains are additional taxes paid on money that has already been taxed.

Clearly, it's a concept you will never understand (vtwit puts the "idiot" in "useful idiot" in spades! - and no, that's not a slur against the fecal matter in chief).

But hey, when you're living off the government, I guess you think we should tax "the rich" - the top 1% of which already pay 40% of all taxes - even more. Yesterday's "fair share" is today's "greed." Funny how "fair share" is a constantly moving target, is it not?

Brilliant. No, really, you're quite a thinker. Imagine that - the fox defending his consumption of chickens from the hen house.

DRed| 3.13.13 @ 4:36PM

If you earn money on an investment that's new income. It hasn't been taxed before. Its exactly the same as earning money from work. That shouldn't be very difficult to grasp. Especially for a boldly original thinker like yourself

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 4:44PM

Ummm, no, that's a capital gain.

A capital gain is a profit that results from a disposition of a capital asset, such as stock, bond or real estate, where the amount realized on the disposition exceeds the purchase price. The gain is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price

It's not exactly the same, as the current situation sits anyway. They invest money they have already paid taxes on into a company and help it grow. The money they make off helping the economy and themselves should not be taxed at the same rate or you will discourage investing.

I thought you liberals were all about investing in the economy?

DRed| 3.13.13 @ 5:14PM

That's a completely different argument (and frankly, a much better one).

CJW| 3.13.13 @ 7:02PM

Congress and President O disagree with you, Dred. Cap gains have been treated different from other income for years.
Most municipalities also disaree because they tax "earned" income, and not cap gains, dividends, and interest.
But to a lefty anthing you can tax and then spend is fair game.

Grzmlyk| 3.13.13 @ 2:16PM

Sweden recently cut its corporate tax rate in order to improve conditions for enterprise and entrepreneurship because they want the Swedish economy to remain "competitive." So the country cut the corporate tax rate from 26.3% currently to 22% to improve prospects for new jobs and investment.

WHAT???? Heresy!!!!!!! Isn't ALL money the government's, when you come right down to it? (Excluding, of course, money that is funneled to Arnie's pals, Obama's corporate crony buddies, all Federal employees, most of the bottom-feeding lawyers, all teachers, all union members, all welfare recipients, all "approved" victim groups and/or all other Communist - er, I mean "Democrat" Party Apparatchiks).

Corporations are EVIL, GREEDY entities, after all, and, since they NEVER pass on their tax increases to the middle class people who buy their products, Arnie and his criminal ilk believe should just get it over with and raise corporate taxes to 100%!!

Why, if socialists weren't also pagans, they'd believe corporations are El Diablo personified!

And now Sweden is reversing the trend????? I'm shocked!

Why doesn't Sweden just do what we're doing? Raise taxes AND print money! Hello!!!! Problem solved.

When you're a thieving Paul Krugman-blowing liberal, isn't that the solution to everything?

7-08| 3.13.13 @ 10:24AM

Of course they are "free" due to the "greatest generation" of Americans, a million or so whom gave their lives.

lost| 3.13.13 @ 3:19PM

Arnie believes that because his European social democracies have expressively given them freedom that they are more free. Him and his kind do not understand that in order for those European social democracies to be able to do that everything had to be taken by the government first. Oh the subjects in those European social democracies sure do feel good that their government has given them those freedoms and the bad ol USA does not expressly give those same freedoms. Except they have one big problem if their laws do not say they have they rights to something then it is by definition illegal. In the USA it is just the opposite and those on the left do not get that

Seapuss| 3.13.13 @ 8:29AM

European social democracies are "freer" than the U.S.? In what sense? Speech? Press? Religion? Property rights? Economically?

You are delusional.

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 10:01AM

Most European countries are more free because they have more equality and less fear. The first has a price for the rich and the second is priceless.

ncatty| 3.13.13 @ 10:51AM

Because your European countries are smaller, and homogenous in race, language and culture, they have more equality and less fear? Careful, you are sounding like David Duke.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:08PM

Equality is not evidence of freedom. Moreover, your notion of "equality" is more evidence of the correctness of this article's premise, as you define it solely in terms of material possessions.

If one works twice as hard as another, but both end up with the same possessions, you call it "equality".

vtwin| 3.13.13 @ 11:08AM

The United States has largest per capita prison population, a larger military budget than the rest of the world combined, and spends more on domestic security as a percentage of GDP than any other country in world. Add to this, constant government monitoring of all email, text message, and phone call, warrantless wiretaps, torture, drone strikes, the growing consolidation of the media… Ah, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

George S| 3.13.13 @ 11:43AM

You liberals throw a rock through the window and then blame Americans for the cold draft.

BTW, speaking of prison, do you find it ironic that John Corzine and the swindlers behind Solyndra, et al, are not imprisoned yet the majority of prisoners come from single mother familes in liberal Utopias such as Detroit and Oakland?

vtwin| 3.13.13 @ 1:03PM

You blame liberals for are growing police state? Please explain.

You find “irony” in the fact that prisons are filled with the poor while the privileged commit crimes with impunity? The purpose of prison is and always has been to protect the privileged from the underclass.

vtwin| 3.13.13 @ 1:18PM

sorry, for the growing

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 1:51PM

No, he finds irony that the privileged buddies of Obama don't even face charges and commit crimes with impunity. He finds irony that ever since the left began the war on poverty, poverty has increased and so has the crime rate.

"The purpose of prison is and always has been to protect the privileged from the growing underclass" Really, wow and here I thought it was to protect the law abiding citizen from the criminal class regardless of race, creed, or color. Silly me.

markenoff| 3.13.13 @ 2:05PM

1) "The United States has largest per capita prison population" - only if you believe that every other country (China, Cuba) provides true information about their prison populations and don't count Cuba and North Korea as prisons;

2) "....a larger military budget than the rest of the world combined,...." - a military that spends more time and money executing humanitarian missions then all the other world's militaries and NGOs combined

3) "....spends more on domestic security as a percentage of GDP than any other country in world..." - to protect us from Islamic terrorists, criminal illegal aliens (I know, redundant) and the barbarians created by 50 years of liberal welfare state spending.

4)"..constant government monitoring of all email, text message, and phone call, warrantless wiretaps, torture, drone strikes,...." - At least you understand the threat to freedom that the Obama administration represents.

squalis| 3.13.13 @ 9:09AM

Impressive!

You have time to post here while making travel arrangements to attend Hugo's funeral.

Sjccoach| 3.13.13 @ 9:24AM

Ad hominem argument prove your statements.

Kwan| 3.13.13 @ 9:53AM

Daaahh yeah if we all just let some Communist Dictator take over our country, then take away our freedoms and wealth, we'll all be healthier, safer, and better educated just like Awnie da Leftist Dummie.

jothepro| 3.13.13 @ 9:58AM

Arnie, you can now stick your dick back where it belongs...

pogybait| 3.13.13 @ 10:11AM

Arnie.... I agree, why only a dimwitted fool would prefer the corrupt, Western-style form of democracy of the U.S, rather than the kinder, gentler, more progressive social democracies these European states enjoy mostly because of Jimmy Carter who won WWll and the Cold War.

Anthony| 3.13.13 @ 10:38AM

I think you'd look great in a burka Arnie. Hell, sight unseen, anything, I suspect, would be an improvement. I think you could also use a taste of Sharia justice.
And when the European sheep do wake up to the realities of their brave new world, they won't have any firearms to do much about it. Circa 1935.
Don't look for the Texas national guard to come to their rescue either, moron. Baaaaaaa.

CJW| 3.13.13 @ 12:49PM

troll alert. purpie trolling as arnie.

crankitup| 3.13.13 @ 8:16AM

Hey lunchmoney when are you leaving our country for those European Paradises you mentioned? you may have to change your name to mustafa or ahmed to really enjoy the healthier populations though. Shalom !

TruSkeptik| 3.13.13 @ 8:16AM

This inherent contradiction requires significant effort to camouflage. Hence, leftist states' necessary control of the media.

ncatty| 3.13.13 @ 9:36AM

Arnie, in citing Sweden and Norway as exemplars of socialist prosperity, approves of white, non-diverse, one language speaking, homogenous cultured societies. Sounds racist to me. No diversity at all!

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 12:57PM

Actually they have quite a few minorities and there probably isn't a Swede that speaks less than 2 languages fluently, if not 3.

You're thinking of Sweden of the 1950s.

markenoff| 3.13.13 @ 2:00PM

Well they've got to learn English since nobody else is learning Swedish. And they have to learn Arabic to communicate with their conquerors; ie those "quite a few minorities" who are out reproducing the native population. In two generations there will still be a Europe but very few Europeans.

lost| 3.13.13 @ 4:21PM

Yes since all non-native Swedes are considered a minority there. Now compare that to oh lets say United States does not consider what country a person is from but by race, you know african, asian, latino, hispanic and so on

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 10:07AM

In America the top 20% of the population own about 90% of wealth; the top 1% own 37%. Does anyone thinks this is good for any country?

pogybait| 3.13.13 @ 10:27AM

So the solution is curbing evil capitalsim and shrinking the economy and redistribution of their wealth?

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 10:34AM

Part of the solution lies in some higher taxation and curbs on the grossest wealth accumulation - this will grow the economy, not shrink it. We need to put wealth to work, not stash it in the Caymans.

Anthony| 3.13.13 @ 10:51AM

Not that a moron like you would appreciate the concept, but money stashed is the very capital that a vibrant economy is built upon.

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 10:59AM

So you think that the trillions stashed in offshore tax havens is actually being invested in productive opportunities for Americans and other peoples for that matter? Where exactly?

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 11:27AM

You do realize we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world don't you? They are stashing the money where the tax rate is lower. Maybe if your side would quit raising their taxes we could get some of that money back here.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 11:36AM

Or maybe the U.S. government could just enforce their laws and go after these guys....Oh, right, but we have a Republican Party that wouldn't like that.

That's why we can't have nice things.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 11:37AM

I mean, I'm pretty sure the U.S. government could raid the Caymens if it wanted to, right? I mean, Reagan, with his brave political stunt took out Grenada, remember?

ncatty| 3.13.13 @ 12:41PM

They might find Jack Lew's accounts.

markenoff| 3.13.13 @ 2:11PM

Here's Arnie calling for endless war against other, weaker countries. That's what the left always comes down to; use force to take what you can't produce yourself.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 11:58AM

You're both idiots.

The US is the only country in the world foolish enough to think that it gets to tax activity in other countries. Every other country understands that they get to tax what happens in their countries and not elsewhere.

We alone think that if someone who does business in America goes to Japan and earns money, he must pay both Japanese AND American taxes on that money. Can you imagine what would happen if the whole world tried this? You'd pay 10 countries' taxes on all your income, and it'd sum to a tax well over 100%!

Even Bill Clinton has spoken against this absurdity.

But there's a catch. The US tax only applies after the money earned in Japan is brought back to America. So people do the logical thing - they don't bring the money back! They stash it somewhere else - like the Caymans.

Democrats, being incredibly dishonest beings, declare that this practice is unethical. How is it unethical to avoid taxes by not doing something that would incur taxes? That's like saying that a stay-at-home mom is unethically not paying income taxes by choosing not to work!

Democrats speak of taxes avoided by the perfectly legal and sensible practice of not performing the taxable activity (bringing overseas earnings into the country) as though they are ENTITLED to that money. As though laws are being broken. It's all lies!

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:03PM

And when Republicans propose to stop being so foolish by ending our globally unique practice of trying to tax overseas earnings, which results only in huge amounts of money being kept out of America, Democrats decry the "unfairness" of allowing people to not pay what they "owe". Remarkable! Maybe schoolyard bullies will learn to use this language to complain about kids who manage to avoid giving up their lunch money!

One wonders why Democrats never feel this way towards those claiming entitlements administered through the tax code.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 12:09PM

JD, those people aren't earning money in the Caymens, they are simply storing money in the Caymens. Your analogy fails.

Those "businesses" in the Caymens usually don't add up to anything more than a one desk room, or simply they are just a post box address. And we do know that a lot of that money is made in America and transferred to the Caymens. We also discovered this recently with a motherload of accounts in Switzerland. Much of that money should have been taxed by the U.S. government.

Get real.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:15PM

I never said they were earning money in the Caymans (learn to spell it, at least). I said they were earning it outside America and storing it in the Caymans.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:18PM

If you people didn't create such absurd tax codes in efforts to steal as much money as possible while misleading the public as to how much you're taking, we wouldn't have such absurdities. A simple, clear tax system in which people pay for government's services rendered instead of funding redistribution would eliminate resource-wasting practices like creating shell offices.

You want to blame people for doing legal things that make boatloads of sense given the perverse incentives you created, but the blame belongs with you who created the perverse incentives.

It's your fault. Own it.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 12:24PM

No, these guys know fully well that they are guilty of evading taxes. You act like the are automatons to their money (maybe they are). And then you go on about personal responsibility for everyone else.

Well, I'm holding them personally responsible for evading taxes in the U.S. period. But of course, I would expect a right winger to have more sympathy for the guy making 50 million a year, than the guy making 20 thousand a year.

Your turn. What do you say?

JD| 3.13.13 @ 2:48PM

Do you invest for retirement using an IRA? If so, you are using a contrived mechanism that exists solely to lower your tax liability. And it's completely legal.

So too people with Cayman accounts.

What you want to do is selectively declare that the IRA use is "moral" and the Cayman use is not. Your subjective desires are not rational, and it is foolish to expect the rest of the world to submit to them.

Beyond that, you repeat a common straw man lie about our "sympathies". Of course you do. For the Leftist, it always comes back to smugly declaring that Leftists have better "intentions". This completely unverifiable claim is only ever used to avoid arguments you lose on substance.

It is not immoral to legally minimize your tax burden. It IS foolish to demand that only certain people don't do this. It is also hypocritical of a party that blames "society" for bad decisions made by people who suffer consequences of their bad decisions, even when incentives didn't lead to them, to suddenly discover "personal responsibility" when they think it should require people they dislike to give them money.

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 12:23PM

Don't lump me in with the two knuckle heads. I agree with you. They want to raise the taxes and then bitch when people use the loopholes they provided. Heaven forbid we simplify the tax codes and provide incentive for companies to do business here.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 12:33PM

Hey I'm all for simplifying the tax code. I say 6 tax brackets.
Marginal tax rates at:

85% for anything over 40 million.
60% for anything over 10 million.
40% for anything over 3 million.
30% for anything over 300K.
15% for anyting over 70K
5% for anything over 30K.
Under that, no taxes but your portion of payroll taxes.

And no deductions at all. Evasion of money into overseas accounts will be considered a felony. Income from investments, capital gains, stock market most all have at least a 30% tax on it.

And people could still work hard and get filthy rich with this system.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:43PM

You have raised taxes on the middle class.

You have lowered taxes on most professional athletes.

You have destroyed millions of American jobs by creating immense incentive to move business out of America.

You have caused the entire investor class to leave the country.

You also haven't raised enough money to support current spending, even if you could (ludicrously) assume that taxable income wouldn't decline as a result of your changes.

Source:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org.....DocID=2980

CJW| 3.13.13 @ 12:56PM

purp/arnie

Since you claim to reside in Europe, do you pay income tax to the USA? And if so, what is your marginal rate and your effective rate?

Grzmlyk| 3.13.13 @ 2:42PM

If you think that's going to fund the metastatizing growth of government, you are an intellectual toddler.

Hey, I've got a bridge I want to sell you for $1,000. No, $2,000. No, $3,000. No, $4,000. Sorry. It's hard to keep with with thieving liberal inflation.

Grzmlyk| 3.13.13 @ 2:39PM

Not only that, but if you force companies to keep their money here and raise their taxes, the middle class that the Arnies and Jack Londons of the world pretend to give a rat's ass about won't be able to afford anything these companies produce.

I know! PRICE CONTROLS! Yeah, that's the answer. Of course that's why there was no bread available to consumers in the Soviet Union, which has the largest tract of arable land ideal for growing wheat on planet earth.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Socialism: Shared misery. Unless, of course, you regularly get on your knees for Obama and his fellow travelers.

pogybait| 3.13.13 @ 1:45PM

So am I to assume that the same people in Washington who have created this mess to begin with are going to decide if I will be allowed to keep a portion of the money that I have earned. What is your price to servitude to this asshats?

pogybait| 3.13.13 @ 11:18AM

How can you put wealth to work when you tax it and remove it from the very people who have created it….this is not an incentive to invest but rather protect.. The redistribution of money by government or putting government in competition with the private sector helps nobody and has proven to corrupt both.

Kwan| 3.13.13 @ 10:49AM

The flaw in leftist nonsense0l0gy is that the more a government confiscates what the citizenry produces, the less incentive that citizenry has to produce. As a result you have a stagnant and declining economy which is what we currently have in our country under Nonsenseologist-in-Chief Barack Obama.

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 10:59AM

How much more of an incentive to the 1% need do you think to get the country moving?

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 11:40AM

Yea, no sh*t.

These mentally challenged type of conservatives think that if somehow some guy is making only 50 million a year versus 80 million a year....well, he's just going to give up....and the whole system will crash.

And that's why we can't raise their taxes, or have unions, or have human health care laws, or well funded public schools...etc.

Kwan| 3.13.13 @ 12:27PM

What do you call one moron agreeing with another moron?
Answer: A convergence of ignorance.

jothepro| 3.13.13 @ 12:56PM

No dipshit Arnie, what these higher taxes do is take more money out of the private sector. Putting a drain on the growth of the economy, but you are a Marxist so you probably wouldn't understand this. ASSHOLE......

JD| 3.13.13 @ 11:51AM

Because you so completely fail to understand what money is and how economics works, you think that you are saying things that make sense.

You think that wealth is created when someone trades something for currency. That's why you say that spending drives economies - you think that the spending (trading non-currency for currency) is creating wealth. That's false. Wealth is created when someone produces it. Trading something produced in non-currency form for currency is just trading.

If government restricts someone's ability to trade produced value for currency such that he's only allowed to claim $50 million in currency per year, he will not produce more than $50 million in value. Or more likely, he will go to a place where the foolish law doesn't apply and produce and trade there.

As it stands, people making below $60,000/year have no incentive to produce more, since any gains are offset by losses of social welfare and tax increases. And people making a lot have little incentive to produce more in ways that are subject to the worst of western taxes, since most gains will be taxed away.

There is still production between these lines - this is what you Leftists take credit for and use to suggest that your schemes aren't ruinous. But every day, you seek new policies that will shrink this production.

By using the straw man argument of suggesting that we believe in a boolean all-or-nothing production incentive, you attempt to avoid facing our true beliefs.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 12:20PM

JD, somehow I just don't believe you guys when you say you understand economics better.

Many on the right know how to make a quick buck by pressing a few buttons, or scamming somebody, but that doesn't mean they know macro economic or micro economics well or the difference between them.

It's funny because most of the economic advisors that you see on CNBC or FOX are usually rich business men that make an argument that is very micro in nature...like, what is best for my hedge fund, my private equity firm, my income, or my business. But the thing is, most economists that study macro economics actually disagree with most of these talking points, especially the talking points of Republicans.

You have to realise, many of you on the right have been spoon feed rich man propaganda, and now they THINK that is understanding economics. But it is not. It is only the notions of a rich guy trying to argue why he should do this or that with his money. That is not the same thing as broad and productive economic policy.

George S| 3.13.13 @ 12:29PM

How did Al Gore become a billionaire?

What did Rahm Emmanuel do in 2.7 years that earned him over $18 million dollars?

Why is Bill Clinton a millionaire?

Speaking of hedge funds... did you know that they are the reason your IRA's increase in value (you like, you liberal you, but you do not want anyone being compensated for that service). Did you know that hedge funds are what keeps public and private sector pensions afloat?

Again, why does al gore deserve to be a billionaire but your hedge fund manager be sized up for a pitchfork?

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 12:38PM

Yes George. I don't mind. You can tax the shit out of Al Gore at 90% and use his fortune to help balance the budget. I have no problem with that. but that means we have to do it with all the Romneys and Sheldon Adelsons out there too.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:37PM

I don't hold a single position that I didn't arrive at myself. You accuse me of being "spoon fed" and make every other claim in your post above for one simple reason - to avoid writing even a single word that addresses what I said.

And it's funny. Your side LOVES to declare that a majority of "climate scientists" supports its AGW theory, but on economics, you simply lose. Most economists are conservatives. Can you handle this? No, not at all.

So you try to tell me that most economists aren't conservative. A blatant lie. And you declare that the economics statements of a rich person are irrelevant due to bias, even as you declare that your "climate scientists" not only AREN'T biased in favor of conclusions that justify their funding, but also are the ONLY ones we can listen to, because experience is essential!

Why is the same not true of the experienced businessman?

It's a perfect contradiction. But of course, the only purpose of such talk, from the start, was to shout down dissenting opinions which cannot be defeated with facts and logic.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 12:50PM

"Most economists are conservatives. "

Really? How do you know that? Did you hear that on FOX news?

That funny, because there was a study about the views of economists. They overwhelmingly agree with the Democrats on a wide range of issues.

http://chrisauld.com/2011/10/1.....conomists/

Sorry to poo-poo your unfounded beliefs. You guys are wrong on the climate, taxes, the economy (let me remind you, your side gave us the 2 largest economic crashes to date), the environment, social policy, health care...

yea, you guys are pretty much wrong about everything.

Still, you didn't address what I was saying. Do you think these guys that store money in the Caymans aren't responsible for doing so?

JD| 3.13.13 @ 1:05PM

You manufacture "data", then declare that all the real data is manufactured by your enemies.

As for large crashes, the last thing you'd ever want to do is root-cause analysis of them, since it would pour cold water on your efforts to blame us.

But your last line takes the cake. It's not only a straw man, but it's a straw man that epitomizes the fallacy of the Left.

You impose perverse incentives, and people follow them. The key difference between the Left and the Right is who gets blamed for this. We blame the perverse incentives. You blame the people who follow them. Every time.

If Barack Obama loaded a preschool with explosives and told me to shoot an old lady in the name of Hope and Change or he'd blow up all the kids, and I shot the old lady, any conservative would blame Obama for the old lady's death, and any liberal would blame ME.

...and declare that the conservatives were racists who hate Obama just because he's black.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 2:01PM

JD, your argument is a joke. I'm sorry, but paying taxes is not a life and death situation like a hostage scenario. And you're a moron to equate the completely different situations.

You have no moral defense of rich tax evaders, face it.

And the huff post? Well, guess what, they just ran a story about how Republican talking points are totally debunked by economists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....r=Business

JD| 3.13.13 @ 5:39PM

Of course. Claim that an analogy doesn't work simply because of magnitude, without explaining how magnitude changes the logic (because it doesn't). Total evasion.

And wow. I forgot how dishonest HuffPo can be. Its list of straw men:

1. Republicans claim austerity helps the economy, but economists say it hurts.
Republicans rightly claim that austerity is better than the alternative. The economists weren't asked to compare it to the alternative - they took it in a vacuum. They didn't disagree with the Republicans, because it was a different question.

2. Republicans claim the 2009 stimulus didn't work, but economists say it lowered unemployment.
Again, two different questions. Republicans say it wasn't nearly worth the cost. The economists weren't asked to consider the cost.

3. Some Republicans oppose substantial immigration expansion, but economists say that more high-skilled immigrants would help America.
Republicans are the side SUPPORTING the H1-Bs that the economists endorse.

5. Republicans have resisted raising the debt ceiling, but economists claim that debt ceiling debates create uncertainty that hurts the economy.
It takes two to tango. Condemning the uncertainty could be condemning Democrats, too. Democrats more than Republicans say that uncertainty isn't a problem!

JD| 3.13.13 @ 1:10PM

Interesting how even HuffPo finds economics to be a right-leaning profession:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....03180.html

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 12:39PM

JD is quite mad Arnie - he is totally clueless. For example, he really does believe that $1 kept by a rich guy in the bank is better than the government taking that dollar and spending it on a poor kid's education, on medical research or a new bridge, etc.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:46PM

What kind of "rich guy" keeps his money in a bank?

Rich people's money is in investments.

And even then, your analogy is wrong. The question is, is it better for a rich guy to invest $10, or for the government to spend $3, of which $1 actually gets to the poor kid?

Wealth isn't zero sum.

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 1:09PM

So if you speculate that dollar on say currency fluctuations is that better than building a bridge or curing cancer?

JD| 3.13.13 @ 1:16PM

The profound arrogance of the Leftist is that he presumes to know better than the collective intelligence of all of society acting through market forces.

You try to justify yourself by contriving scenarios which sound as absurd as possible, but the reality is that centralized management inevitably takes money from more useful purposes and gives it to less useful purposes.

Do we need Obamaphones for dead people more than we need (private) investment in energy development?

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 1:36PM

Answer the question - do think that currency speculation is better than curing cancer?

JD| 3.13.13 @ 2:51PM

You despicable troll.

You so desperately need me to be something I'm not. You won't even talk to me unless I comply with your desire that I say something stupid!

The fact is that a cure for cancer, like all worthwhile endeavors, suffers due to the economic harm your party inflicts. And ironically, "currency speculation", which you call "monetary policy", is one of the ways in which you do it.

So no, I don't prefer currency speculation to curing cancer. And that is one of many reasons why I oppose you!

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 3:35PM

Not too sure why I'm despicable as we both agree that currency speculation is not preferable to curing cancer. Well done for making a wise preference for investment.

jothepro| 3.13.13 @ 1:03PM

I would rather believe the propaganda of a successful rich man than of a man who believes the propaganda coming out of the mouths of people that have never run a business or even understand what human nature is. I mean people like you Arnie-ass....

Al Adab| 3.13.13 @ 1:42PM

Get over it you two. The point of freedom is to allow cream to rise, not to impose equality of condition by force. That would be tyranny.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 2:05PM

Al Adab, well, when I look at the heads of many corporations, the guys running the banks, the many rich donors to the political parties, it occurs to me that in capitalistic America, shit floats.

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 2:47PM

I think we should ask Al how many of this 'cream' ends up in jail. Such as Bernie Ebbers and co. See Time's top ten crooked CEOs:

http://www.time.com/time/speci.....55,00.html

Al Adab| 3.13.13 @ 4:51PM

Jack Arnie:
The fact that some commit crimes (and end up in jail like the Detroit Mayor) is no argument. Punish the wrongdoers through the justice system not through the unjust confiscation of property.

Have a great evening.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 2:56PM

Leftists are forever blaming the Right for their failings.

The only reason anyone has to lobby or bribe government is to get something in return. The giving of things to any entity, by government, is definitionally Leftist. The Right believes that government shouldn't be in that business.

All lobbying and bribery is yours. You own it. Because you are dishonest, you declare that if a rich person does it, or a "Republican" does it, that we of the Right own it. Hogwash. Our beliefs are clearly defined, and things which run counter to them are not our responsibility.

It is you who justify government meddling in the economy. You who desire it. You who declare that government can "improve" things by moving resources around according to the "wisdom" of central planners.

YOU concentrate power in the hands of these people, leading to the corruption that concentration always causes. In your vanity, you condemn supposed concentrations in the private sector, only to propose the alternative of far greater concentrations - in your hands!

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 5:13PM

Bullshit JD. It was the conservative wing of the Supreme court that said the influence of money in elections should to be regulated.

The Bush administration actually appointed people that were ideologically opposed to the missions of the government agencies. Labor department, put in somebody that hates labor, SEC, put in somebody that looks away from their crimes and defintitely don't regulate, interior and EPA , put in somebody close to the mining, gas, and oil business.

No JD, your side is completely complicit in selling out the government to serve the interests of the rich and connected few that have no interest of the larger public. Why, because your side doesn't even believe in the idea of a functioning government!!!

JD| 3.13.13 @ 5:28PM

And of course, you can't read. I said Because you are dishonest, you declare that if a rich person does it, or a "Republican" does it, that we of the Right own it. And what did you do? You claimed that I own it because Bush had an R by his name.

The fact that there existed agencies to bribe is your doing, exclusively. The suggestion that it was what they didn't do, rather than what they did, that caused problems is completely wrong.

The Housing bust occurred because HUD spent the early 90s declaring that mortgage lending was racist and that lending to poor and minorities needed to increase. Regulators brow-beat banks into increasing lending by refusing to approve routine operations until lending rates improved.
Of course, other criteria prevented those people from qualifying for loans that weren't subprime, but they "fixed" that by requiring Fannie's portfolio to be 40+% poor/minority loans, by beginning the acceptance of subprime, and by making it "racist" to rate subprime securities lower than other securities.

All of this was done by regulators, and the result was that the previously nonexistent subprime market (no one would touch something so unsafe, mainly because Fannie wouldn't) became a huge opportunity. Banks could issue millions in subprime debt and sell it to Fannie or to others in highly-rated securities, all because regulators insisted that it be so!

Regulators didn't fail under Bush. They inherited a mess and didn't change it.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 5:54PM

Yes, you are right about one thing, Republicans suck at governing too......I would say since Nixon.

But you guys are really good at trying to sweep your shit under the rug, and not taking any responsibility for your complete and total screw ups. It's a good thing most of the American public has seen through your BS.

By the way, federally managed loans were only about 5 percent of all bad loans. Funny how you guys never mention the commercial market, or all the other 95% of private market loans.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 6:27PM

I did mention bad private loans. You're just an idiot.

Once the federal government started endorsing subprime, buying subprime, and even requiring that it be highly rated in securities, it made sense for private banks to issue and hold subprime. What was the risk, if government backed it?

And they were right - government DID back it. They bailed banks out! On the whole, the sector came out ahead. Your side loves pointing this out, but you call it an evil of the Right. YOU did it!

You have no counter to any of my points - only desire that they not be true. Meanwhile, you've never had ANY arguments for your beliefs - only that same desire.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 6:50PM

JD, you are implying that 100% of the loans were guaranteed, and that is why the banks got a bailout. That is simply not true. You are just making shit up!!

The reason why the market blew up is because the financial industry, all of it's own volition, made financial instruments to repackage debts, and insure them and spread the risk throughout the system. The governments only failure was that it chose not to regulate those swaps or monitor wall street. Why? Because they had orders on high from the Bush administration, and the Clinton administration, in the name of the "free market" to keep their hands off. This type of thinking emanates from end of the spectrum.

Your points have been defeated over and over on this thread with a super plex....amateur.

There are tons of interviews for employees of financial institutions that were given orders from up on high not to reject bad applicants....these were not needy applicants by the way that fell under federal program's. Why were they told to do this? Profits baby, profits, we got to make a good looking quarter. Wall street was on cocaine ....literally and figuratively. I suggest you look these interviews up.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 7:01PM

You don't want to get it.

Government got into the ratings game, and since it did so on the taxpayer dime, no private risk-evaluator could compete. So they all disappeared, leaving government as the authority everyone trusted.

These risky loans - they all met the government's criteria. Fannie would have bought any one of them. The whole world had learned to trust whatever Fannie bought. And again, that trust proved justified. The government bailed them out.

This didn't happen because some free market believers got into the game. The entire thing was as anti-free market as it gets.

To defend the honor of your precious regulation, you need to blame these failures on others. You try to blame it on me by associating it with "big business". But that doesn't absolve you. I'm here telling you that when big business interacts with central managers in government, YOU own the consequences, not me.

That's what you can't accept. You'll never accept it. Your entire ideology requires that you deny it. Equating all actions by big business with the Right is fundamental to your politicking.

Petronius| 3.13.13 @ 8:11PM

Keep cool with Coolidge.

vtwin| 3.13.13 @ 11:22AM

I don’t think so Jack. Today, there are only two counties, Mexico and Chile, in the world with worst income and wealth disparity than the United States. A nation of haves and have-nots is not a nation that will remain free long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIAm0OrRKCI

George S| 3.13.13 @ 12:24PM

We are so effing poor that the Nanny Statist Bloombergs are limiting soda sizes and seeking to cut trans fats because we are too fat.

Can't you keep your talking points in some kind of sensible order?

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 12:42PM

Quite so vtwin. You can also see how little freedom millions of Americans now suffer from thanks to inequality.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:51PM

You Leftists are so incredible allergic to dishonesty that you have a grossly misleading statistic for every aspect of life.

Measuring well-being using pre-tax income is absurdly flawed. It ignores the impacts of government redistribution in order to inflate "inequality". Which is what you want:

http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....family-mak

Also, you rank people by households, not as individuals, in order to inflate inequality. In America, households in the top 20% average 2.4 full-time workers, while the bottom 20% average 0.6. And over time, top 20% households have been gaining members while bottom 20% have shrunk.

You measure what a person earns, not what he has or what he spends. That is because you are dishonest.

But most of all, you blame US when it's actually YOUR policies that increase inequality:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/.....-tax-rates

It is truly absurd to measure equality using pre-tax income, but attempt to remedy it using tax manipulations. Even if you take ALL of a millionaire's income and give it to an unemployed person, your metric will still call the millionaire "rich" and the unemployed person "poor", which you will interpret as evidence that you "need to do more!"

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:52PM

* allergic to HONESTY

vtwin| 3.13.13 @ 1:22PM

And you are apparently inflicted with stupidity.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 2:57PM

The Left only ever has one response to hard facts: to shoot the messenger and ignore the argument.

George S| 3.13.13 @ 1:46PM

Inequality resides in ability. There can only be one shortstop for the Yankees; only a few late night TV talk show hosts; only one CEO of Exxon-Mobile. There can only be a few rich people because not everyone has the skills or the talent to create things people want or need to survive or to make their leisure enjoyable.

If everyone is equal, who cleans the operating room floor and who does the actual surgery? If they both get paid the same. why spend the money to go to med school?

Best of all, Jack:

Who Determines Equality?

Do you seriously believe EVERYONE will agree when they are equal? Or will someone make that choice for us?

Vielleicht Sie, Herr London?

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 2:19PM

No one is suggesting that all be equal in outcomes. I would say that a CEO earning a multiple of 500 times his workers is not a great way to create societal cohesion and that not taxing inherited and investment income more fairly is no way to go. There are so many bad outcomes for countries with gross inequality that I'm surprised you support it.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 3:00PM

Lies and straw men.

Fair is getting to keep what you produce. Fair is getting market value when you trade your production for currency. We support fairness.

Equality, or lack thereof, are naturally-occurring conditions that cannot be altered by government fiat. They are simply reflected.

Because we recognize fundamental truths, you accuse us of always liking these truths. This is another of your lies.

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 3:37PM

So if you are the CEO of a major corporation is it fair to get 500 times more than a worker who actually produced the goods? Or would say 100 times be a bit fairer and a bit more to the workers?

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 3:38PM

And if you inherit Bill Gates' estate is it fair not to pay any of it in tax?

Al Adab| 3.13.13 @ 4:46PM

No one may assume the moral authority to make that decision.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 5:19PM

The premises of your questions are all wrong. You ask them out of some combination of ignorance and malice.

What is fair is for people to trade without being coerced. If a person wants to work for a certain price, he should be allowed to. If he can get a better price elsewhere, he should be free to go. Both upward and downward pressure on the price of all labor and all goods functions like this.

A fair tax is a payment for government services rendered, just as this is a fair price for anything else.

Why should government be entitled to any of Bill Gates's estate?

You speak of a worker who "actually produced the goods". You suggest that the CEO is nothing without the worker. But what is the worker without the company? No tools, no materials, no place to work - he produces nothing without the company! He owes the same vague, open-ended debt to the company that you claim that the CEO owes to him!

Oh wait, no they don't. There are no vague, open-ended debts. The Left invents these concepts to justify anything it wants, but they don't actually exist. They don't exist because the debts are already paid. The company, the CEO, the worker - they all agreed to their work and their pay. It's settled!

Will you run back to the store and give them an extra dollar for your bread if its price increases tomorrow?

Petronius| 3.13.13 @ 8:37PM

Executive compensation is an issue for board members and share holders. You want a say in that? Buy stock and vote on it.
Get does Not mean TAKE. And if the line worker's liabilities exceed his Earning capacity, that is Not management's problem. The unskilled and unmotivated are an unnecessary burden on business. And that sand box called society is overflowing with the excreta of economic illiterates again. Even a puppy has the sense not to soil it's own bed.

George S| 3.13.13 @ 12:12PM

That is just the stupidest liberal talking point that there is.

If the guys at google and facebook did not exist, where would their billions be right now?

Look at it this way: a society of ten people each with a 100 dollars. One is a carpenter and makes nine chairs and sells them to the others for $90 each. That means that the carpenter has $910 dollars and the rest have $10. The carpenter has what percentage of the wealth?

Answer: 50 percent (NOT 91%!!!!!). That is, each person has $10 plus a $90 chair and the carpenter has $910. Total percentage of wealth did not decrease for the nine but the carpenter has been compensated for his labor. If the carpenter didn't exist, the nine would still have $100 in wealth -- but in cash only minus the chair. The carpenter didn't take their wealth, he traded it for labor. That is the simple problem; it gets trickier if the carpenter uses his $100 to buy the different materials for the chairs from the other nine.

So, how much more will you have if the rich didn't exist? Assuming, that is, you had a job that is made possible by the rich. The answer is the same: your wealth is your cash plus the stuff and services you purchased. And that is a far cry from 10% of the wealth.

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 12:40PM

We are not talking about eliminating 'the rich' George. Just about more investment in making the country more productive and less unequal.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:58PM

You do not make the country more productive. You do not make the country less unequal. You do the opposite of these things. Your intent does not absolve you. Stating your intent doesn't make you immune to criticism.

Leftists forever declare that their noble (stated) goals make them immune to criticism, and that no one can disagree with their methods unless he has opposite goals. Then they go on the rampage, condemning us for our "evil goals".

How can you oppose "investment"?

We talk 'til we're blue in the face about how your ideas do harm, not good, but you never had any intention of honestly discussing outcomes. All you are here to do is to pronounce us "evil" and walk away, smug in your delusion of superiority.

Spending is not "investment" just because you call it so.

vtwin| 3.13.13 @ 1:37PM

Sure it is. The government spends money collected as taxes to educate our children. This is an "investment" in our society and the return on this "investment" is a more productive society, a more richer society.

jothepro| 3.13.13 @ 1:48PM

I just love the richness of the obfuscation of the truth that you lefties spout with the code words you have to use to confuse the people who you think are stupid.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 3:01PM

By such a definition, all spending is investment. The War in Iraq was investment! And we should print and spend infinite money, since it will all be investment!

By reducing the meanings of words to nothingness, or absurdity, you lie to people to dupe them into supporting your agenda.

George S| 3.13.13 @ 1:28PM

That was my point, Jack. Those example people are still equal in wealth - 10 dollars cash and 90 dollars in chairs. The carpenter is the productive one and is therefore not equal to the others. The others cannot get the chair that they NEED and WANT until a carpenter makes it. If you take away the carpenter's money, where would the chairs come from? They won't materialize. Unless you force him to make those chairs.

Is that what you are advocating?

If not, then your argument is moot (and pointless).

If you are advocating forced labor, then you are promoting equality. Equality in misery. And that is the bottom line in a non-free market. You cannot have equality and a free market coexist.

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 1:38PM

Tell me George - is there any difference in a dollar spent by a rich man on making a chair and the government taking a dollar more tax from that rich man and spending it on making a chair?

George S| 3.13.13 @ 1:52PM

How does the government know that a chair is what is needed and to allocate the capital efficiently to meet the demand?

In the free market, the carpenter starves if he guesses people need chairs instead of door frames -- he has allocated capital in the wrong direction and better figure out why. That is why stores do not carry every possible item and why some items have to be ordered at a higher price.

Ah, but the government doesn't care if the chairs do not sell at that point in time. The money they lose they recoup in taxation by force and threat of loss of liberty. The carpenter then pays the taxes and has that much less capital to allocate to people's needs and wants.

I should charge you for economic lessons. Is it fair that I know more than you?

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 2:15PM

OK. Now substitute 'basic medical research' for 'chair'. Or 'core computing technology' such as that that helped create Google. Or 'highways' and 'bridges'. Then calculate the return to corporations and to the wider economy on an ongoing basis.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 3:07PM

Separating the decision-making from the paying always leads to inefficiency and waste. In government, those deciding to spend money never spend their own, and the consequences of waste are seldom applied to the decision-maker.

Leftist fallaciously assume that the government spending money is as good as the private sector spending the same money, because they fundamentally don't understand, and hate, market forces. They think governments can make better decisions than markets, which reflect the collective knowledge of all. This is their arrogance, which they don't even understand that they have.

They try to force their insanity on us using cooked statistics. For example, every penny spent by government is summed into "GDP", but only a fraction of private spending is counted in "GDP". They say they are avoiding double-counting, but government spending is subject to all the same double-counting potential as private spending. The real goal is to make "GDP" be a number to which government spending contributes more "efficiently" than private spending. This is to reinforce their claim that government spending is more important to the economy than private spending.

Being unwilling to analyze the sum of government spending vs private spending, Jack demands that we use his anecdotes - a dollar for cancer research vs a dollar for currency speculation. Of course we can create counter anecdotes - a dollar for Solyndra or a dollar for kids' food. But Jack doesn't notice that.

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 3:43PM

So JD you think that building things such as the Interstates was a terrible government decision? Or the human genome project? How awful for us.

George S| 3.13.13 @ 4:50PM

If taxes were applied only to highways and bridges, computer technology, medical research, etc., then the federal income tax would top out at 5%. Add operating the cost of basic government services and military and taxes would top off at 20%. The other 80% is a direct transfer of wealth -- Medicare and social security ("Payment to Individuals" in budget parlance).

Then ask those who pay property taxes if 5 to 15 grand a year is needed to run the fire departments and the water supply and the sewers (things that service your property). But the books show that over 80 cents to the dollar goes towards education and retirement benefits (things that should be income taxes but income taxes do not hold your property hostage).

This is the complaint; not the peanuts (not) spent on the crumbling roads and bridges because high speed rail, wind farms and other liberal boondoggles are more attractive to government than actually doing the work they are supposed to do.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 5:13PM

Jack, you simply fail to comprehend. Our WHOLE point is that no one person or small group can have an understanding of all that is that matches the understanding society naturally produces through prices.

Yet out of spite, not sincere debate, you demand that WE tell you EXACTLY what would have happened if your ideas were not implemented. Our WHOLE POINT is that that's impossible!

Leftists tell us that we can't get our way unless we tell them exactly what the outcome will be (in contrast to their "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" standard for themselves). The smartest Leftists do this out of conscious knowledge that that's impossible.

And that's their goal - to win not because their policy is best, but because they've set a double-standard.

You say "was it a bad idea to build the interstates"? Of course you ignore the cost of building them, because you are dishonest and like to consider the benefits of your ideas without the costs. But you also know that we can't say what the resources used to build the interstates would have been used for if government hadn't seized them. That's actually OUR point. If I claimed to have an answer, I'd be claiming that I'm smart enough to be a good central planner. You want me to defeat my own argument!

But because I have logic, I know that in the long run, government will make worse decisions than a free market. Because you don't have logic, you're trying to win on anecdotes.

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 2:01PM

Yes. The goverment always loses money since it has to take a cut out to pay for the beuracracy that is the goverment before they even begin to spend it on that chair.

Do you honestly think the goverment takes a dollar and spend a equal amount? Do those goverment workers work for free? Do the buildings maintain themselves? Who files the forms showing what dollar went were and how do they get paid?

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 2:02PM

Dang George, you did a much better job of showing how stupid his argument was. Well done.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 3:19PM

Don't go there, Sailor. He'll call all that waste "stimulus!"

The simple fact is that chronic shortages plague all managed economies. The Soviet Union was a prime example. This is because Big Brother can't possibly stay up-to-date on minutia of the entire society. Long after a shortage in one area has been alleviated (by some brusque means), the government is still churning out tons of product in that area while other areas, which need the same raw materials, face new shortages.

Supply and demand are natural forces that correct these situations using the collective knowledge of every person as built into price. The people, functioning as a whole, know far more than the government ever can.

Leftists don't get this.

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 4:47PM

Of course, Stimulus, I should have known. Thanks JD for keeping my liberal talking points straight.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 5:23PM

The interstate system has been an economic multiplier of massive proportions, the final figure of economic wealth generated from it is so large, it's probably incalculable.

Now, no company or collections of companies was ever going to build that individually or even working together. It was an excellent decision and directed by the government.

Poor conservatives can't point to such a huge successful project of their making...

"What did Calvin Coolidge do? Nothing."

Except his policies, of a hands off approach to Wall Street like W, ended up in a massive crash that brought on the Great Depression. Good job, conservative fucktards!!!

JD| 3.13.13 @ 5:51PM

Increasing profanity is often used in the absence of sound arguments.

Huge successful products? What are you typing on?

Coolidge presided over a decade of phenomenal economic growth that ended in a collapse brought about by disastrous monetary policy crafted by central governments throughout the western world to help WWI losers pay their war debts. The result was massive contraction of the money supply. This caused particular pain in the US, where the proliferation of "one branch rule" regulations prevented banks from diversifying, such that many US banks failed while their Canadian counterparts didn't. From there, moderate-left policies under Hoover (the Bush of his era) and far-left policies under FDR/Obama broadened the crash into a depression.

Leftists, as always, blame their disaster on the Right, despite lacking any solid connection between right-wing ideas and actual events of the crash.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 6:06PM

JD, Canada has always had really regulated banks...regulation, you know, that thing you conservatives hate. That's why the didn't have financial problems even during this last downturn in their banks.

As for the idea that Hoover and bush are lefties is so hilarious I won't even comment on it. The fact is, fdr was cleaning up the mess left by your idols of the 20s, unemployment had dropped 8 percent in 4years under his leadership, and in fact, the war spending effort was a massive works program and proves the effectiveness of Keynesian economics.

And if fdr was so horrible, why was he reelected 3 times with huge majorities?

And in response to your first question, a massive amount of the knowledge and engineering in computer and networking technology happened within the university system of the US, and in military research. The private sector just adopts these findings, and I have no problem with the free flow of information.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 6:24PM

Of course. Regulation is like ketchup - you have varying amounts of it - season to taste. Never any scrutiny of what regulations there are or how they work - that might prove you're full of it!

Canadian banks were hit hard in their agriculture holdings too, but without one branch rules, you didn't have entire banks in nothing but regional industries. That's an explanation that makes sense. Yours is just your say-so.

Both Hoover and Bush liked left-wing interventions. NCLB, Medicare Part D, and TARP are Bush's examples. There's nothing conservative about any of them, and plenty that sounds awfully left-wing.

FDR expanded the recession into a depression and added a nice double dip right after the 1936 elections. His reelections don't validate his policies, only the power of duping the public. Unemployment stayed sky-high long after any impact of 1929 was gone precisely because he kept it high. It fell during WWII because people went to war, not because the economy improved.

And you write as though there was no science or technology until government started working in it.

Arnie| 3.13.13 @ 6:57PM

That dip in 1936 was austerity demanded by deficit hawk conservatives. fdr caved, and he shouldn't have. Apparently you haven't learned enough from history. It's no surprise to me why your party continues to repeat past mistakes.

Anthony| 3.13.13 @ 10:29AM

I don't prescribe any altruistic movitves to the ruling Leftist class. Period.
Leftist elites are not interested in material bounty for the masses, rather, like the old GUM department store of yesteryear in the old Soviet Union, the bounty of capitalism was only for the select few.
As our society devolves each day, as Obozo and Co. impose their Marxist solutions for America, we see the ruling class doling out just enough to the masses to exist.
The push for smaller, more dangerous cars, one size fits all national health care, replete with Sarah Palin's preceint death panels and the push of the masses to large urban centers, is proof postive of the elite left's intentions.
In addition, the nanny state, a la Mayor Blumturd, is hell bent on insuring we don't screw up our miserble lives any more than they will allow us to.
And if you think real Americans might just rebel against this, well, that's why Homeland Security has purchased billions of rounds of ammo.
Things are gonna get dicy folks!!!

Louis Jenkins| 3.13.13 @ 10:42AM

Gotta keep the miserable class producing for the likes of Bloomburg, don't they. Why doesn't DC, during the sequester, cull back on buying ammo? Or stop buying armament for DHS? Instead Obama puts the halt to WH tours. What gives?

It is as plain as the nose on your face. Where are Obama's priorities? If this doesn't tell you nothing will. No more tours of the WH but enough rounds to kill everyone in the USA 5 times.

Autorotate| 3.13.13 @ 10:47AM

Ref: "In America the top 20% of the population own about 90% of wealth; the top 1% own 37%. Does anyone thinks this is good for any country?"

In a Socialist state, most of the wealth is owned by the State, and a top few percent of the population controls the State. That seems hardly an improvement over our Capitalistic society and certainly not worth giving up our liberty and property. If the top 20% or top 1% in America earned their wealth in legal and moral endeavors, why should I be jealous?

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 11:01AM

No one is talking about nationalizing our entire economy. Don't be ridiculous.

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 11:28AM

In other words your ok with nationalizing part of our economy then?

Kwan| 3.13.13 @ 1:09PM

They already have DS. ObamaCare has nationalized one-sixth of the economy. Now they have their sights on the other five-sixths. These people seem to have an irrational compulsion to convert our country into a Totalitarian Socialist State in order to force upon us some absurd nonsense called equality.

Drunken Sailor| 3.13.13 @ 2:04PM

Kwan,
Why do I get the feeling that they always try this only to blame the results on conservatives and move when they wreck the place.

Oh, I know why, they have been doing it to the individual states for years.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 11:42AM

No, you're not TALKING about nationalizing our entire economy. The last thing you want to do is TALK about it. If you TALK about it, people will oppose you.

The key is to simply DO it while telling people that it isn't happening. You tell them that everything is theirs and government owns nothing, and they are free. But meanwhile, you "regulate" how people use what is "theirs" until you control it just as much as you would if it was nominally "yours". Thus you achieve nationalization in practice without the messy politics of actually defending it.

Chazael| 3.13.13 @ 10:50AM

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Ex 20:17

This is part of "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:36-40).

The left has a love, but it is not the same love as Christ as their love is against what He taught. One cannot serve two masters as one will necessarily hate that which is against what one loves (Matt 6:24).

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:06PM

Democrats act as though all wealth created anywhere on earth should belong to America (specifically THEM). If their policies make Americans uncompetitive with foreigners, they declare that our jobs have been "stolen" or "shipped overseas". When a company does all it's profitable work outside America and earns no profit in America, Democrats publish their global profit in their media and complain that they "paid no taxes" even though they actually paid tons of taxes, but they paid them in the countries where they earned the profits!

As discussed above, they think that all work done anywhere should be subject to US taxes, and complain of unethical "tax evasion" when this doesn't happen.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:14PM

Group topic here:

I've been reading books on the subject of health care lately, and I encountered statistics that I'm looking to verify.

On the topic of America's "uninsured", I've found the following claim:

American Leftists claim that 50 million Americans lack health insurance. But of those 50 million...

About 10 million actually do have health insurance, but are misreported.

10 million are not US citizens.

Of the 30 million remaining, 17 million are eligible for taxpayer-funded health insurance through the government, but have not actually claimed it. In most cases, they simply aren't consuming health care, but if/when they do, they'll just be handed some enrollment forms and then become insured at no cost to themselves.

There are only 13 million US citizens who lack health insurance and cannot get it without out of pocket costs.

Of those 13 million, 10 million are part of households earning at least $75,000/year. They could afford it, but choose not to.

There are only 3 million US citizens who do not have insurance, are not eligible for government insurance, and are part of households making less than $75,000/year.

There are a number of citations in the book for this data, but I'm looking for more. This is powerful evidence if true.

George S| 3.13.13 @ 1:33PM

Whether it's true or not should be irrelevant. People make choices. How many of those uninsured cannot afford insurance because they chose not to live in the slums, or want premium sports packages, or make payments on a BMW instead?

Their decisions should not make money fly out of our wallets.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:24PM

In Orwell's 1984, one of the refrains is that "freedom is slavery".

No theme from that book better applies to the modern Left.

The founders of this country - classical liberals - believed in individual rights and fought against governments that oppressed them.

Neo-liberals of the 19th century like Marx and Engels turned that thinking completely on its head.

They wondered how it was that "free" men came to spend their days toiling at jobs they didn't enjoy. Shouldn't they be relaxing at the beach?

The explanation, of course, is that freedom is not, and can never be, freedom from responsibility. From reality. Man still needs to eat, and be clothed, and be housed. These needs are not imposed by other men as oppression. They are natural facts of life. The work man must do to meet these needs exists whether man is free or not.

But neo-liberals didn't see it that way. They decided that all pain, all expense, and all work necessary to fight them were a form of slavery, and that man was not free so long as these existed. Declaring that these costs could only possibly be imposed by other, evil men, these neo-liberals declared that true freedom would be achieved by having government fight all impositions of need, which were declared to only ever be the unethical actions of other men.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:32PM

Ever since, Leftists have fought to restrict true freedom, believing it to be the only meaningful source of slavery. "Freedom is slavery". Once they've prevented men from doing anything which might oppress others (keeping in mind that imposing costs is defined as oppressing, even if it's merely passing on costs that are part of nature!), they will have achieved what they call "freedom".

Remember how frequently they tell us that if all of our country's wealth were evenly divided, we'd all have plenty? That's key to their argument. They declare that costs charged are unnecessary; that resources exist in plenty without the "oppression" of charging prices that require people to work in ways they dislike.

But of course it's not true that we can all lie on beaches all day and yet have plenty. Or even that we can all do work that we "enjoy", but only work the limited hours that the Left declares to be few enough to avoid imposing on "freedom". To sustain their myth, the Left requires that we be terrible at math. They declare that a great many entitlements can be delivered, and the cost shall merely be one of the 17 yachts that the CEO currently has.

Because life's costs aren't imposed on the whims of evil men. They are life's costs. They come from nature. No "freedom" from them can be had, except by enslaving other men to provide for you!

Petronius| 3.13.13 @ 9:27PM

In very truth. Those vicissitudes are at it again.

crankitup| 3.13.13 @ 12:27PM

WOW!! Too many paid trolls, the author must have hit the sweet spot.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 1:17PM

They're not paid to troll (other than any wealth redistribution enacted by government which incentivizes its beneficiaries to speak in support of it).

The sad reality is that people believe this stuff. It needs to stop.

DRed| 3.13.13 @ 2:12PM

The vast majority of American 'leftists' are neither socialists nor communists. Which pretty neatly makes this entire article nonsense. Yes, communism is terrible. Socialism doesn't work as well as capitalism. History has proven that. But this is what you get when you have a party with no ideas.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 3:09PM

Is a person a socialist if he claims not to be a socialist but supports policies which collectively create de facto socialism?

The key to the advance of socialism is America is answering "no" to that question.

DRed| 3.13.13 @ 3:26PM

This country isn't even remotely close to being socialist, so who cares?

JD| 3.13.13 @ 3:28PM

Tell me, then: what is the threshold of being "socialist"?

DRed| 3.13.13 @ 3:44PM

Well, you're (predictably) completely ignoring my point, but I'd say you'd have to have a majority of the economy under some form of collective ownership and control for a country to be considered socialist.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 4:32PM

DRed, I am not ignoring your point. I disagree with it. But if I said "yes, this country is socialist", you would just repeat your "no", and we'd be at an impasse. And the cause of the impasse would be differing definitions of socialism. Therefore, to advance this discussion, I asked for your definition so that I may speak to it.

It is common on the Left to define policies by their intentions (or stated intentions), while the Right is results-based. I believe that Kim's Korea, Mao's China, ancient Egypt, and Stalin's USSR are more alike than different in that their governments exert extreme control over their economies. That some claimed to do so in the name of equality, while others openly admitted to doing so to maximize the wealth of their elites, matters little. The results were the same.

You stated that socialism is "a majority of the economy under [collective ownership and control]". I'm glad you included the word "control". You saved me from having to write a long-winded explanation of how nominal ownership matters little compared to who has true "control".

JD| 3.13.13 @ 4:40PM

What would our government do if it had official ownership of an industry? It would have workers and factories and managers and whatever. It would make boatloads of rules regarding what they can produce, how they can produce it, how they buy their materials, what they can sell their product for, etc. It would also prescribe worker treatment, hiring practices, and worker pay. It would establish oversight agencies to make changes in these rules as it is perceived to be necessary. It would also establish punishments for violating any of these prescriptions.

Anything else? I hope not, since what I have described already completely captures what Mao's China or Stalin's USSR did. What could be left of them?

And you know what? The US has all of these things. It doesn't have the nominal ownership, but we have already agreed that this is a technicality of no real relevance (if you disagree, let me know and I'll write further on it).

Sure, you can argue that the rules prescribed are not so barbaric here as in other places, but that hardly means that we're not "remotely close to being socialist" as you claimed earlier. And there's nothing stopping the rules from changing - not when they're written by unelected regulatory agencies instead of congress!

JD| 3.13.13 @ 4:44PM

Of course you'll say we don't have the "do it our you go to the gulag" nature of the USSR. Or do we? Plenty of regulatory violations can lead to jail time. And just because the consequence for not following a leftist "incentive" are only financial, that doesn't mean a lot of people have any choice in practice!

Thomas Sowell writes well on modern western Fascism, which is what we actually have. Fascism is socialism except without the nominal ownership. So... basically identical in policy, but far easier to dupe the public into supporting, because Fascism presents "greedy evil business" as the target for all ire by giving nominal ownership to business and blaming it for all problems. People are led to support increased "regulation" to fight the evil business. This allows the Left to gain as much control as it can imagine, but STILL punt blame to the "business".

Now, the only way to make such a scheme work is to ensure that the businesses still make good "profits", or they won't exist to be your blame target. But that's the beauty of it - they CAN be allowed profits that seem substantial enough to sate them (and to earn further public ire). The total cost of such profits to society is actually very small, so the Fascist is willing to pay it. Especially when the legislature and the businessman is the same person!

JD| 3.13.13 @ 5:05PM

Of course, the Leftist likes to enumerate freedoms we still have as evidence that we're not socialist. Ironically, he tends to enumerate the freedoms he wants to END, even as he tells us "I'm not a socialist!"

DRed, you said America's not remotely socialist. You said few American Leftists are socialists. I asked you to define socialism, and you gave me a definition that describes lots of things currently happening in America. Furthermore, most American Leftists support more of these things.

Care to change one of your statements?

Because they value intentions over results, Leftists define socialism in terms of intentions. They say that it is government taking control in order to promote "equality".

But we of the Right know better. All forms of collectivism are only this: concentration of power in a central authority that promises to use it to promote equality. There is never anything in any of these systems that actually enforces the requirement to promote equality. That is why they are functionally no different from dictatorships that don't pretend to care about equality.

But not to worry. According to a HuffPo article in early December, Barack Obama can't be a socialist because equality has increased on his watch. So there you have it - any attempts at socialism which FAIL will simply not be considered socialism.

Socialism can't fail!

DRed| 3.13.13 @ 5:27PM

Well I'm glad I saved you the trouble of writing a long winded response. You're massively overstating the level of control that the federal government has over the private sector.

Leftist by and large support a more regulated and redistributionist for of capitalism because they think that leads to increased liberty and prosperity. I get that you disagree. What I don't get is how you think its socialism.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 5:46PM

And I get that you think your intentions justify you. I wrote quite a lot about that. It's the results that are the problem!

You say the level of federal control in America today is small. People who aren't directly suffering from it tend to say that. But you know every form of control I described exists. You chose brevity in your response to avoid dealing with that.

If you don't "get" how I think it's socialism, you didn't read what I wrote. It's one thing to disagree. It's another to admit not understanding, yet condemn. America has too much of the latter.

DRed| 3.13.13 @ 6:32PM

I chose brevity in my response because I'm writing with my phone. What you are writing is detached from reality. That's why I don't get it.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 6:40PM

I can't counter a point that vague, except by repeating my long posts. I hope you don't think that means you win.

DRed| 3.13.13 @ 5:49PM

And you and sowell are even more wrong in conflating modern american liberalism with fascism. Fascism was much more than an economic system. To pick only one example, contemporary liberalism is aggressively multicultural. I think you'd agree with that
But multicultural fascim is an oxymoron. Fascism explicitly and violently champions the superiority of one ethnic and cultural group.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 6:00PM

Again, your emphasis on stated intent over methodologies and results. While there is a lot of debate over the definition of fascism, nothing in its methods requires ethnocentrism. You say fascism is "more than an economic system". You never claim that we don't have the economic system part in America!

In fact, if one understands the terms "culture" and "nationalism", one COULD apply those labels to American Leftists. As your side so often claims white people are racist without even realizing it, so too you fail to see the magnitude your discrimination against certain cultures and ideas which aren't yours. NASCAR fans, for example. Culture isn't nearly so tied to race as your side claims it is.

And there's plenty of nationalism in Leftist rants against outsourcing.

Leftists, in their efforts to malign the motives of others, have long equated racism with the Right despite the nonexistence of racism in right-wing ideology. This is used by the modern Left to resist the appropriate label "Fascist".

DRed| 3.13.13 @ 6:38PM

You're making sweeping generalizations from superficial similarities. There is a vast difference between saying "outsourcing is bad" and "the master Aryan race has the right and the duty to destroy and enslave the lesser peoples of Europe". Its wildly dishonest to pretend there's any equivalency between the two. Nobody is calling for the mass murder of NASCAR fans

JD| 3.13.13 @ 6:55PM

Feigned outrage? Check. Using difference in magnitude to pretend that an analogy has no validity without explaining how magnitude changes the logic? Check. Subjectively and arbitrarily declaring similarities "superficial"? Check!

I'll be sure to let the black community know that so long as someone's not calling for their mass murder, there's no discrimination!

JD| 3.13.13 @ 6:04PM

You people so often complain of business "buying" a congressman, even though they don't nominally own him, but only supposedly control him.

How then can you claim to not understand how government could "own" a business without nominal ownership, but by controlling it?

Jack London| 3.13.13 @ 3:45PM

Clearly your threshold is $1 of any tax. You must hate living in the very mixed private-public economy that made America a superpower.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 4:22PM

I have always said that government's role is to protect natural rights and that taxes paid should correspond to services rendered, Jack. You cannot possibly not know that I believe this, as I have written it to you many times. That you lie about my beliefs is further evidence of your dishonesty.

davidh| 3.13.13 @ 2:45PM

So Obama wins all the way around with his strategy of the middle class transfer to the poor:

So the class warfare is a ruse. The plan is to get the middle class to pay for the gravy train for Obama’s constituency.

Job| 3.13.13 @ 2:47PM

More people continue to immigrate to the USA than all the rest of the nations combined; why is that?

Mebbe it's the poor here are rich by most of the worlds standards. If we are such a bastion of oppression as some would suggest then i don't get it.

There is this saying if it ain't broke don't fix it but i supose you can fix something that aint broke by customizing it. So i guess what many fail to appreciate is that our leaders are pimping this ride that we call the USA.

In the country of the blind the one eyed man is king.

In the country of the blind socialists. The one eyed man's eye is put out and his right hand is amputated just for good measure.

(of course, if it was me they'd be going fe fi fo fum how dyou smell that one eyed Americun, because if they didn't know how to smell an eyeball how could they find you unless you are a bonehead you go you'd probly tell 'em, "hey i'm over here, i only regret that i have one eye to give for my country."

but that's just me and of course this is hypothetical and all and i don't even wanna get into the code of hammarabbi or anything cos it would be messed up if i was the only one with an eye and then had to go ahead and give an eye for an eye tooth.

Kingofthenet| 3.13.13 @ 5:09PM

The simple problem with the Ryan Budget is this, to give Jack Walsh, Jamie Dimon and George Soros a tax break, it has to come from the Poor and Middle Class, if that sounds good to you, than support the Ryan Plan.

JD| 3.13.13 @ 5:41PM

Because economics is a zero-sum game...

Stan Allen | 3.13.13 @ 7:41PM

Where's that comment that said that "Freedom" meant "Less Fear" and "More Equality"??
Perhaps the poster thought about it, and redacted it. If so, good for him; that was the most unintentionally hilarious definition of "Freedom" I think I've ever heard.
Mr. Young, and Spectator magazine, it may be time to publish a refresher on what "Freedom" actually means.

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|86 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|97 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|23 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|28 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|31 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6:34PM

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

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

By George Neumayr

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

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

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

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?