Should the Rich pay more in Taxes?


Larry Elder, writing in Town Hall Magazine noted a 2008 poll given by the Investor’s Business Daily that sought to find out what most people think the rich pay in taxes. The findings were that most people believe the rich pay contribute approximately 20 percent of all federal income taxes. This is far, far less than what the rich pay. An informal poll was taken by a US News and World report Blogger of 24 DNC delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in 2008. A question poised was, “what do you think the rich should pay in income taxes”, the average response was that they should pay about 25 percent. Strangely the fact is that the rich pay a lot more than this in tax rates and as a percentage of total tax revenues.

The fact is nearly 50 percent of all Americans pay no federal income tax at all while the top 25 percent of wage earners pay about 85 percent of all federal income taxes and that doesn’t include government perks such as earned income credits, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, and a host of other government programs.




Percentage of tax revenue according to income
Percentage of tax revenue according to income
The rich must pay their fair share!
The rich must pay their fair share!

Moral Questions About Tax Policy

There are a number of moral questions about taxing policy that few people consider.

Question 1: Is it moral for those who pay no taxes to vote on how much to tax those who are required to pay tax?

Question 2: Walter Williams writing for Townhall magazine asked if it is it morally right for one American to live at the expense of another American. More specifically should taxpayers be forced to pay for handouts, to banks, auto companies, college students, the poor and countless other special interests?

Question 3: In a free country, is it morally right to tax someone at a higher tax rate than someone else? Not only do the rich pay more taxes but at a higher tax rate. Even the Old Testament tithe was a flat tax, 10% for everyone!

Question 4: Because the government has imposed a high tax rate, less is available to give charitably give to those in need, this includes family members.

Question 5: Walter Williams writing for Town Hall magazine asked if it is morally right to force others to give their rightfully earned money to others or other purposes not specified in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.


What behavior do we reward?
What behavior do we reward?

What do We Want to Reward?

The wealthy in this country for the most part have gained their wealth through providing something of value to others. Their contributions have created opportunities for others, we should be grateful to these people and strive to do what they’ve done and not penalize them for their achievements.

Most of us desire to help the poor and destitute but will acknowledge that rewarding dysfunctional behavior is not helping but enabling many to remain as they are. Many poor people have poor values, bad attitudes, irresponsible habits and various addictions. Local, private charities are often much better suited than government programs to evaluate the needs of poor and destitute and help these people. Government programs on a whole have just increased the cycle of dependency and rewarded poor behavior.


 The religious vs. the secular. The religious give and volunteer more.
The religious vs. the secular. The religious give and volunteer more.
Conservatives vs. Liberals! The more liberal  the less charitable, the more conservative the more charitable.
Conservatives vs. Liberals! The more liberal the less charitable, the more conservative the more charitable.

Liberal Hypocrisy 101

Columnist Larry Elder writing for Townhall magazine noted that President Obama called charitable giving and higher taxes a matter of “neighborliness” and that Vice President Biden said it was a matter of “patriotism”. Yet their charitable giving until recently has been below what even the average America gives.

Elder notes that in 2007 greedy and evil George Bush and his wife gave 18% of their income to charity, while president Obama gave 5% to charity in 2007. Elder goes to say that between 2000 and 2004, the Obama’s gave less than 1% of their income to charity while earning between 200,000-300,000 dollars per year, while the average American gives about double that percentage in charities. Elder noted in 2007 the Biden’s gave 0.3% of their income to charity and from 1997-2007 the Biden’s charitable giving has averaged about 1% of their income. Do you think there might be a little phoniness going on here?

It should be noted that federal income tax often hinders those are trying to become successful not the wealthy themselves. Often rich liberals are living in the lap of luxury while preventing others from advancing up the economic ladder and challenging their success? How do they do this? The answer is by punishing the wealth creators with high taxes and burdensome regulations to make sure that they maintain their own monopoly. Oh did I mention that according to statistics the average liberal household is wealthier than the average conservative household, but that the average conservative gives 30% more to charity.

So what do you think, should we increase taxes on the rich, what if you wanted to become wealthy would you feel the same way? Should the rich pay more than 35% of their income in taxes while nearly half of America pays no income tax at all? Isn’t being forced to pay to benefit someone else a form of servitude or slavery? What about the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, how is it that the government can pick the pockets of one citizen to buy the vote of another citizen?




More by this Author


Comments 359 comments

PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

I prefer to believe what Warren Buffet had to say in the Sunday New York Times. A good article where says that he and his Mega-Rich friends are paying way to little in taxes. I think he is the most qualified to judge. Even the rich are embarassed by the coddling they get from this government. Let's all pay our fair share.

Peter


PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

Here is the link to the Buffett article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-cod...


American Romance profile image

American Romance 5 years ago from America

Hey Peter, there is a form from the government one can fill out and make donations to pay down the deficit! If Warren is sincere why hasn't he written a check for 5 billion and sent it in??? .............Maybe liberals don't mean what they say and simply want to burden others to keep them from having what they have?

Hey Peter how much has your life improved with Obama and his cronies? Will you now have less or more???


PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

I don' think you can call Warren Buffett a liberal. When you have as much as he does then maybe someone will listen to what you say.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

Peter - Nothing is keeping Warren Buffett from stroking that extra check except air.

The Frog


dougrd profile image

dougrd 5 years ago from South Beach, Oregon

I suggest doing away with the IRS...and initiating a flat tax of 10-15% along with an oversite committee led by Ron Paul. If Warren Buffet feels so strong about giving money..he should feel free to do so but unless he is elected to office, he can keep his suggestions personal. How about us correcting our SPENDING first, plugging loopholes and corruption on ALL levels of state and federal government.


PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

Nor any of the TPM from balancing the budget with their money or the Congress from turning down their raise in salary to balance the budget. Frog don't use a very weak argument. He doesn't have to justify his reasons just stating facts. What is wrong with a very wealthy person stating the obvious?


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

PETER LUMETTA- Thank you for your comments! Warren Buffett asking for higher taxes is like a kid asking another beating, there's more too this than what he's saying! Buffett is actually paying more taxes than he would have you believe. His dividends and capital gains are double taxed to an effective corporate tax rate of 35%. The comparison to his office workers rates are distorted because only the first $120,000 of his income is taxed for social security thereby artificially inflating the office workers effective tax rate by comparison. Who knows why he makes this case, he has been a long time friend of big government and the democrats.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

dougrd -- Good to hear from you again! A flat tax is a great idea, it takes the politics out of taxation. And your entirely correct that this tax the rich rhetoric is a smoke screen for the governments failure to get spending and curruption under control.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

Peter - The fact that he isn't putting his money where his mouth is Peter is the strongest argument I know of.


PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

Frog if I accept your premise, "to put his money where his mouth is", then you would agree that those in Congress that also think the govermnet is spending to much should not accept their raise that they voted for or for that matter any money from the government until they balance the budget. Right? Your saying any one who believes what they are saying should be willing to back it up with their wallet.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

Peter - That's exactly what I'm saying. If you talk the talk then walk the walk. I saw an interview with one of the "Millionaire Patriots" yesterday and the same question was asked by the interviewer. I saw a spendid tap dance in action. In another interview I saw one explain that he would "if" he knew the government wouldn't waste the money. Well DUH!


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 5 years ago

If Warren Buffett and his pals want to pay more in taxes all they have to do is mail in the money. Sounds like idiotic grandstanding to me. I also find the almost 50 percent of people who have no skin in the game to be going along for a free ride. Vilifying the rich is not the answer. Our president thinks that couples earning 250, 000 a year are millionaires and billionaires. I think he needs to go back to Harvard. We need to cut spending. A flat tax would be a great way to even things out. That along with a low VAT would, in my view, be a great idea.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

Hubbers

Hold your breath, Congress comes back to Washington in Sept.Fiscal year 2011 ends Sept 30th and fiscal year 2012 starts Oct 1,2011.Upon Congress returning, Speaker Boehner should prioritize working on the approval of the

2012 budget, the budget needs to debated before any new legislation is on the Senate floor. The Senate has not yet submitted a 2012 budget. Fiscal year 2012 begins oct. 1,2011.

Congress should be reminded that any increase in spending requires cuts to support the spending as per the PAY-GO LAW signed by President Barack Obama. On 6/29/10 I Wrote About PAY-GO

2/13/10 2:04 PM EST

President Barack Obama is hailing pay-as-you-go budget legislation he signed Friday night as one in a series of crucial steps needed to snap Washington out of a

destructive pattern of overspending. “Now, Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody

else,” Obama said in his radio and Internet address released Saturday morning. “After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of

politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility. It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under

control. But that’s what we must do.”

President Barak Obama promised open and transparent government. Where is the 2011 BUDGET Mr. President. What is the hold up in next years spending budget?

The PAYGO compels new spending or tax changes to not add to the federal deficit. Not to be confused with pay-as-you-go financing, which is when a government saves up money to fund a specific project. Under the PAYGO rules a new proposal must either be "budget neutral"

or offset with savings derived from existing funds.[1] The goal of this is to require those in control of the budget to engage in the diligence of prioritizing expenses and exercising fiscal restraint. The interest on the national debt is $1 billion a day and rising. The unfunded liabilities of the country is $104 trillion.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

JON EWALL-- Thank you for your well informed comments. It seems the governments best skill is to play a game of smoke and mirrors with the voters. This PAYGO bill might finally provide some real accountibility!


jon ewall 5 years ago

wba108@yahoo.com

Your welcome


Texasbeta 5 years ago

You want to compare charities of the Bush family vs Obama's family? Are you kidding me? Do you know about the Bush family's money, how W got handed company after company by his daddy? Obama came from a poor family, a mother who was a student, raised by his grandmother. Yeah, the guy earned a little bit of money, but to compare the coffers of Bush vs Obama is ridiculous. That is like comparing how much money Obama has to me.

To the point, what percentage of the middle and lower classes overall income departs with payroll taxes, and what percentage of overall income do the top 2%'s pay in taxes? Remember, most get a sizable amount of income from capital gains. Go ahead, I'll wait. When the top 1% own over 80% of the wealth in the entire country, you have to delve a little deeper. The bottom half have $1.45 trillion in total assets. Now, go look up the top 1%.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Texasbeta--In 2007 the income of the Obama family was 4.2 million; the Bush family income was 923,000k. I’m not comparing family wealth only the percentage of income given to charity. As I noted in the article conservatives give an average of 30% more to charity then liberals and the average conservative household has less income than the average liberal household.

The comparison of middle income earners with the so called rich is distorted because only the first 120k of high income earners is taxed for social security thereby inflating middle class effective tax rates by comparison. The effective tax rate of high income earners is underreported because dividends and capital gains are taxed twice.

Is it fair that the top 1% of income earners control 80% of the country’s wealth; well that’s a question for another day? Thanx for commenting!


jon ewall 5 years ago

Texasbeta

Class warfare is not what America is all about except in the mind of progressives, especially in the government. People all over the world want to come here. They can come here with nothing and end up becoming rich. The meaning of rich has a meaning to those who understand poverty and who understand what freedom means.

Those 14 million out of work understand that our government is part of the problem. President Obama says ''I know your hurt '' REALLY.

CLOSE TO 50,000 ON FOOD STAMPS and 14 million collecting a ''living wage'' government pay check ( UNEMPLOYMENT ). Just thought to inject '' living wage '' only because one hears the unions use the phrase when discussing the private sector businesses.

If millionaires or billionaires want to pay more, have them hire more people. Surely it is better for the people to have the money rather than an incompetent and wasteful government. If the people are working and companies are making profit, the government in the end will get their share (revenue ) for doing NOTHING.


Texasbeta 5 years ago

WB- While I appreciate your enthusiasm, you have to look at your source. You are basing this entire thing off an article by Larry Elder, a guy who writes regularly for WorldNetDaily, the most blatant example of flat out lying in "journalism." Larry Elder makes a living off propagating an ideology. Townhall magazine is one of the most conservative magazines out there, spinning names like Counter and Prager. So, the source is financially motivated to propagate an ideology, one that is still promoting the concept that the rich are abused, and the more you give them, the better we all are.

With regards to the specific donations of Obama and Bush, Obama was in the private sector and Bush was a President with a set salary. You can give me what they made that year, or you can give me what percentage of overall wealth they have given. Bush comes from a family that is wealthy, not rich. Obama is rich. Shaq is rich. The guy who signs his checks is wealthy. See the difference? If they went on a coke binge together, one would be out in 3 years and the other could go on for another 40 years. Secondly, the dude was ramping up for running for President. That costs a bit of money. The other had no personal expenses at all.

Now, Townehall magazine actually sourced Arthur C Brook's book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism. It definitely DID show that conservative report giving more to charity, and the religious people give in astonishing numbers when compared to "everyone else." However, one must definitely take note, Brook's sources were based upon people REPORTING giving to charity. It might be entirely true, spot on. HOWEVER, this is based upon what people CLAIM they give to charity. I know I give monthly to PETA, DNC, and the SPCA. I also donate to Obama's campaign and to Planned Parenthood. That shows my political leanings for sure, but I ask that you respect the logic of my response. I don't claim a single dime of what I give to charity, not once, not ever. I give a total of $130 a month to various charities and political organizations, but never put it on my taxes. I feel dirty putting it on my taxes, personally. It wouldn't be charity if I got to write it off, at least, that is how I look at it. The article you reference only cites people who report their charitable donations, which is not exactly accurate. For example, 40% of people when asked if they go to church weekly, said they did. However, when polls asked who went to church that week, only 20% really did. I just ask that we think about it more objectively and always look at the source and their personal motivations.


JON EWALL 5 years ago

Texasbeta

Wow, you are one of the lucky ones who have a job and hopefully paying your fair share of taxes to the us treasury.

I was told '' it is better to give than receive'', my better half told me that when we got married. I am one of the poor, She has it all

Have a great day


Texasbeta 5 years ago

Ewall - Your first paragraph contained quite a bit of rhetoric. First of all, you claim American is not about class warfare, only the progressive are. Let's address this point at the onset. The Constitution only allowed people who owned land to vote, originally. It defined black people as 2/3 of a human being. It did NOT let women vote or have barely any rights. SO, written into the very founding document of our nation is class warfare. It might not have been against warring against white, land owning men, but we have been about class warfare from the very steps of the signing of the Constitution.

As it is used on the Right, class warfare refers to poor and middle-class people who are so overwhelmed by their envy of the rich that tearing the rich down is an end in itself. Identifying a policy as class warfare implies that envy of the rich is its real motivation, and so invokes a morality tale in which a desire to harm others rebounds against the person who harbors the desire.

What are some of the examples of liberal questions that are promoted as engaging in class warfare?

What if we don't feel like we're getting a fair shake or that people in general are getting a fair shake? What if people are dying of curable diseases because there is no money to pay for their treatment? What if people who want jobs can't find them? What if teachers are getting laid off, equipment is breaking, and class sizes are growing because there's no money in the school budget? What if houses are burning down while firemen watch, because of money? What ifcollege is out of reach, even for families that have worked and saved? What if libraries are closing? What ifwe can't afford to train special-needs students to be productive citizens in decades to come? What if our bridges are in danger of collapsing and our stadium roofs are falling in? What if we don't know where our energy is going to come from, and the energy we're using is pushing us closer to disaster?

we rank 64th in income inequality, behind Camaroon and Iran. The conservatives of today are arguing that we need to fix the deficit problem with all spending cuts. The Democrats (those darn liberals and progressives) are arguing to fix the deficit problem by with ALMOST all spending cuts. Seriously, this is all over a 3% marginal tax rate increase on the top 2% of the population of this country, back to the boom time rate of the 90s. It would get us $700 billion over 10 years. The bottom 60% of the country for example, have $1.4 trillion in total wealth. Think about that for a second. $700 billion is exactly HALF of the entire wealth of 60% of this country, and we are talking about 3% personal income tax increase on 2% of the country, which they were paying no more than 11 years ago when the economy was going nuts. Those spending cuts ARE what that bottom 60% of the country USE to just get by. These are programs like a place to send your kid after school that is safe while you work your 2nd or 3rd job for minimum wage. These are programs to have someone with a slight clue of how to deal with a kid who is autistic, rather than your assistant to the assistant coach of your 7th grade baseball team teaching them. This is what gets cut. Planned Parenthood gets cut. I know you adore that decision, but I ask you to think about this objectively. Abortion is only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does. Planned Parenthood is the primary provider for 3 million women in this country, because we have such a problem with getting some people insurance. That stuff gets expensive my man. Think about if you were a single mom, by no fault of your own, with a kid or two kids, and working as a waitress and then at say Wal Mart afterwards. How in the world are you going to pay $700 a month in insurance on top of everything else? You aren't. You can't, but you have kids. That's where these women go. That ends up being a state thing, but you get the point. So, in cutting spending the way that we do first, we ARE cutting from the poor, from the bottom 60%. That means they spend more of what they have, which as we have said, is only twice as much as the very cuts we are talking about. SO, you are taking it from either group...it is just that one with one group it is 3% and from the other group, it is HALF of their entire wealth.

I would love it if we went after real spending cuts, like the $168 billion we give each year in corporate welfare. I would love to cut corporate tax loopholes like Google running its profits through Ireland, then the Netherlands, then Bermuda to avoid paying $16.8 billion in taxes in a single year to the tune of only paying 2.2%. I would love to cut the loopholes that allow people to hide their money overseas. I would love to redo the concept of PAC groups being considered non-profit and not paying taxes, on both sides. They are clearly partisan and thus not non-profit. I would like welfare reform in the form of hardcore regulation. Too many people are getting it when they clearly don't need it. Half of the state of Kentucky has government paid for scooters that they ride on...it is a mob of old chubby people griping at townhall meetings about government takeover of healthcare, while riding on government paid for scooters...a classic scene. Why on earth would we pay for that? Can't someone audit things like that? That is a government job, and I think a needed one at that. It would pay for itself within an hour. There are a sizable amount of cuts I think are much needed, however we never cut things like that. We cut the program for the schools to hire a teacher who has some special needs training for your autistic kindergartener. Instead, we put in the coach who is only there half of the day and smacks him in the head when he makes too much noise. These things have consequences is what I am saying.

With regards to your initial paragraph and people coming from all over the world to get rich, I think you might reconsider after checking the statistics. France, Canada, Denmark, Finland, etc...all have more economic mobility than in the United States. People can definitely make it rich, but statistically, they don't. You can, however, come here and work. You can barely make it, which is how most of this country lives daily. Again, this goes back to adding 3% on the personal income tax rate of the top 2% of the country, a rate they paid just 10 years ago, and when the economy was booming. Since 1979, and the advent of supply side/trickle down economics, we have pushed this ideology that we need to lessen the burdens on the rich as to generate more revenue opportunities for our wealthiest job creators. What this has done is create an income gap that puts the US 64th in the world, worse than even Iran. The real, after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent during that time. In 1972, CEOs made 10 times the amount of the regular worker. Today, they make over 400 times the amount of the regular worker. We are living in the manifestation of this ideology right now, and it isn't working. Buffet pays 17% in personal income taxes each year, more than his house maid or garbage collector.

With regards to class warfare, Republicans are can't "make a living" off of class warfare and then blame the other party. That is like you calling the Dems the party of No. First, there is cultural class warfare. The Republicans have portrayed the Democrats as the party of a cultural elite,ivory tower intellectuals and inside the Beltway bureaucrats, totally alienated from the concerns of ordinary Americans. The redirection of populist rage from Wall Street fat cats to Chardonnay sipping intellectuals is brilliant, I'll give it to you. Then there is economic class warfare. Republicans have been fighting for the allegiance of the middle class for years. In the 60s, the middle class joined hands with the poor. In the 80s, the middle class joined hands with the rich. Anything that Democrats claim will hurt the poor and help the rich is immediately penned as class warfare. Paying subsidies to companies to ship jobs overseas will hurt the poor and help the rich. It cuts down on their overhead. When Democrats tried to stop this pra


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Texasbeta—There is no doubt that Townhall magazine leans heavily to the right and that its use of statistics at times exaggerate the issues. In fact you should be cautious to not to rely too heavily on statistics because they are easy to manipulate. But all exaggerations aside, the fact that the President and the VP are crusading as white knights on the virtues of charity does smack of hypocrisy when you compare their words and actions.

I would agree that the comparison between the charitable giving of ex- President Bush and President Obama is not entirely proportional. The Bush family is far wealthier than the Obama family and it’s not entirely fair to compare giving in a year that President Obama was campaigning and of course George Bush was not! But even taking all those factors into account, I belief a good case for hypocrisy can still be made about the grandstanding of the President and the VP.

I’m impressed by the purity and sincerity of your beliefs but I do question the sincerity of many leaders of the causes you support. I am trying to become more objective and better able to recognize the bias of those I agree with because I don’t want to throw out a lot of unsubstantiated facts to discredit my own cause. Thanx again for your thoughtful analysis.


Texasbeta 5 years ago

Thanks WB - I really appreciate the response as well. I didn't know Obama and Biden were crusading as white knights of charity actually. Honestly, I just haven't ever seen them make a statement to those regards ever, not once. I might have overlooked it, but I am kind of a political junkie. Still, I miss things sometimes. I have plenty of problems with Obama, the odd thing is, conservatives never bring them up. They always talk about other stuff. Weird really.

I'll give it to you that some of the orgs I support are shady. PETA is ridiculous. I know this. I support them because the other side of the coin are so vicious and numerous that I figure it balances out to an extent. Planned Parenthood gets a horrible stigma, but abortion only accounts for 3% of what they do, and they are the primary care providers for 3 million women, in many cases, the only place single mothers can go for health care. I fully support this org and wish I could do more. The DNC? They are idiots. I don't know what to tell you. I wish I had more. AND, the SPCA got me with the Sarah McLaughlin commercial. Man, that thing gets me every time. I have to change the channel. Have a great evening and thank you for the opportunity to comment.


jon ewall 5 years ago

Texasbeta

Long and windy reply, get it out of your system. There’s a reason for what you believe and like the saying goes ‘’ to each his own’’

You said ‘’I would love it if we went after real spending cuts’’

Check out the $9 trillion in government waste see

DEFICIT WASTE IN the US GOVERNMENT see video

Back in the black, the SOLUTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

You said ‘’Anything that Democrats claim will hurt the poor and help the rich is immediately penned as class warfare. Paying subsidies to companies to ship jobs overseas will hurt the poor and help the rich. It cuts down on their overhead.

Check this out!

President Obama appointed Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, to be the chairman of his ‘’ JOB COUNCIL’’ not too long ago. General Electric just signed a joint venture agreement with the Chinese government to construct jet aircraft, a $2 billion deal for GE. The deal makes China a direct competitor of Boeing , a US manufacturer. GE recently closed their world headquarters of a medical x-ray company and moved it all to China (lost jobs and manufacturing ). GE recently closed a company in upper New York and moved the jobs to China. GE received $ billions of stimulus money, made record profits, yet paid $ 0 taxes. No doubt about it, that the mainstream media reported the news.

President Obama helps his friends and other big contributors to his campaign. That’s a fact.

Check this out

Obama on bus tour recently stopped in Atkinson, Illinois on Aug 18, 2011 and asked the audience to tell him what the government needs to do to get people to hire, JOBS. Unanimously they replied new government regulations are killing the job market. President Obama said he will look into the matter only if the regulation doesn’t affect clean water and/or clean air. Sounds good for now!

Here’s a fact

DIFFERENT GAME TODAY

Republicans control only one third of the government (2011). The Democrats have had 2/3’s control of the government since 2007 to the present.

Texas beta

Get out of the past , start living in the present and the future. The problems that you speak about have been around a long time. Call your elected representatives, voice your concerns and demand him/ her to start working for the betterment of the people. Put the party wants behind the needs of the people. Have a good day. Live and enjoy life

Tax the Rich?

When there are no more so-called rich to tax, who will take care of the poor and middle class?


Tony L Smith profile image

Tony L Smith 5 years ago from Macon

Enjoyed your article WBA. Looks like you opened a can of worms.

I been studying wealth and wealth mindsets. We first must stop blaming others for our lack and take responcability for our own thoughts and do like Jesus and John the baptist said 'Meta Neo' (change the way you think) King James uses repent. This is the basic message of all wealth books, although they may not quote the scripture.

You would enjoy Jesus in the Lotto line

http://hubpages.com/business/Jesus-in-the-Lotto-li...


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

TS- Thanx for your comments! Its true that "envy rots the bones (Prov 14:30)", and thats what seems to be behind the class war. Its a lot easier to blame our situations on externals than take responsibility for our own stinking thinking.


justmesuzanne profile image

justmesuzanne 5 years ago from Texas

The fact is, the poverty stricken (such as myself) pay taxes at more than twice the rate of the average person and people who receive unemployment and welfare must pay taxes on that. Many billionaires and corporations pay no taxes at all thanks to tax cuts and loopholes. The fact is, all people, rich & poor, need to pay taxes at the same rate without outrageous interest and penalties applied to the poor who struggle to pay them or gratuitous loopholes and favors granted to the super-rich and corporations that attempt to evade them.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Suzanne- I’m also in the poverty stricken class myself with just enough income to get taxed pretty good and I think almost everyone should pay something even if it’s just $50. I don’t see the facts supporting your opinions as evidenced in my article. The top 25% of wage earners pay about 85% of all federal income tax and the bottom 50% pay almost no federal income tax at all. How much would you suggest they pay?

I’m all for closing loopholes and favors to government preferred businesses but I believe you can raise taxes on the upper income groups so high before the middle class is hurt more than they are. Middle class incomes often depend on the spending and hiring of upper income individuals. If taxes are raised upper income individuals will often just live on their savings and hold off on major purchases and investment until a more opportune time which hurts the middle class the most.


PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

Aw is that right wba? Then why has it gone in the opposite direction in the last 10 years with those Bush tax cuts for them? Why don't we try it the logical way and have the rich pay what they owe instead of taking it from the old, the sick and the poor, O. K.? Let's try that for 10 years and compare.

Peter


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Peter- I doubt we’ll ever agree unless you become an ultra-right wing conservative but I like you anyway! The Bush tax cuts were for everybody not just the rich. In the last 80 years there were steep tax cuts under Presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. In every case these so called tax cuts for the wealthy led to higher tax revenues and an increase in economic growth. The living standards for the poor were also improved because a rising tide lifts all boats. Thanx for your comments-WBA


PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

It didn't work this time, did it?

Peter


jon ewall 5 years ago

wba108@yahoo.com

’we need to use the government to make it fair... take money or resources from the rich and give them to the poor‘’.

The Obama led government has placed 340 NEW regulations costing the private sector $65 billion to operate their businesses . The continuing threat to add more is the major reason why business is holding back on hiring more people . Result of which is 14 million out of work and a 9.1%unemployment crisis.

On Obama’s recent bus tour, the audience told the president that NEW government regulations are hurting the business industry. President Obama said that he will look into the matter, just another joke.

A recent irs audit revealed that illegal immigrants received $4.2 billion from uncle sam under the earned income credits. Wow, fraud and/or waste?

WORTH WATCHING for an eye opener about the government.

Sept 8, 2011 8:00 pm Presidential debate

Sept 9, 2011 President Obama speech to a joint session of Congress


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Peter- This Bush tax cuts did work the economy grew and more revenue was brought into federal coffers. Employment rates were at historically high levels until 2008. Deficits fell much of Bush presidency with the exceptions the first 2 years following 911, the tech bust and the beginning of the first round of Bush tax cuts and during the financial crisis of 2008. The financial crisis of 2008 also coincided with first full year of the democratic control of both the house and senate.

Obviously there were many factors that come into play other than tax cuts that also influence the economy. Also President Bush angered many conservatives with his high spending policies; Bush was far from being a conservative. The liberal myth is that unregulated free enterprise and tax cuts are what caused the 2008 crisis.

The truth is the 2008 financial crisis was brought on by a number of complex factors that had a lot to do with redistributive progressive policies that were enacted before and during the Bush presidency. Among these policies was government interference in the housing market precipitated by unconstitutional laws, actions by the FED that kept interest rates low for too long; Other factors included, a recession near the beginning of when Bush took office, the financial fallout from 911, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, resistance from democrats who controlled either the house or senate for about half of the Bush presidency.


PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

So wba the answer to my question is, right, it didn't work, just cut the smoke and mirrors, Bush left this country $4 trillion in higher debt than when he started. The financial crisis of 2008 therefore was a direct result of G W Bush's failed presidency. Thanks for clearing that up.

Peter


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Peter- I'm glad I could be of assistance to ya! LOL


JON EWALL 5 years ago

PETER LUMETTA

''The financial crisis of 2008 therefore was a direct result of G W Bush's FAILED presidency''.

REALLY! can you name the failed policies that Bush and the 2007,2008 Democrat majority Congress are guilty of ? Bush and Company may have added $4 trillion to the National debt in 8 years, is that worst than what President Obama and Company has added in just 2.5 + years of $4.5 and running.

DON’T MISS the OBAMA STYLE smoke and mirror show on Thurs. Sept. 9,2011

Try to understand that when Obama blames Congress for the ills of the country, note that the Republicans have only been in control of 1/3 of the government since Jan. 2011 ( 8 months ). President OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS have had control of 2/3’s of the government since 2007 to the present. The President, Pelosi and Reid haven’t left as yet.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon- Thank you for your well informed commentary! Great point about the threats of mounting regulations that that have kept employers from hiring, resulting in high unemployment. Your right, of course, that the President’s new initiative to roll back regulation is a symbolic gesture. I understand regulations are now estimated to cost 1.75 trillion annually in compliance costs. That should alarm any sane person who values the American dream and the freedoms in the Constitution. -WBA


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

PETER LUMETTA

''The OBAMA STYLE Smoke and Mirrors Show ''

Out of 70 major wind farms that received the $4.4 billion in federal energy grants through the stimulus program, public records show that 11, which received a total of $600 million, had erected their wind towers during the BUSH administration. And a total of 19 wind farms, which received $1.3 billion, were built BEFORE any of the STIMULUS money was distributed.

Yet all the JOBS at these wind farms are counted in the administration's figures for jobs created by the stimulus (CREATIVE ACCOUNTING ).

Since it gave out its first grants on Sept. 1, 2009, the renewable energy stimulus program has handed out more than $5 billion to more than 1,100 projects, many of them small solar-energy projects. The largest amount of money, $4.4 billion, has gone to big wind farms.

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investig...


PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

JON EWALL

What does all the bull you just put down have to do with George W Bush's failed presidency? None, it is all just an attack on Obama who I am not defending. Whatever this president does is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about 2 wars that sucked lives and money out of this country for no apparent reason. I'm talking his $4trillion dollar debt, the TARP program that failed. The tax cuts to the wealthy that were supposed to create jobs and still haven't over ten years, what happened there? What Obama came in an fired all the new job holders? I am real tired of your tired old blame game. It is all their faults, both sides of the aisle and the POTUS. Why won't any body take responsibility? did this all happen on it's own? I think not. And you and wbe keep thinking that the Republicans had nothing to do with it, WRONG! Everybody is making excuses when there are none. Face it we got problems and excuses are not going to change anything. from either of us.


JON EWALL 5 years ago

PETER LUMETTA

You said 'I am real tired of your tired old blame game. It is all their faults,''

WHO is blaming who ''GAME ''.

I NEVER ONCE PLACED A BLAME, just told the facts.

'' The tax cuts to the wealthy '' THE TAX CUTS WERE FOR EVERYONE!, you apparently don't understand what the tax cuts accomplished.

''all the bull'' NOT BULL ,JUST FACTS! On Thurs. you will get the big bull. Just a repeat of Jan 2009,2010 and 2011.

Try to get out of the past and get in the present.

Obama will speak to Congress and the people on Thurs. On wed. watch what the Republican candidates have to say, maybe than you will be more knowledgeable?

Have a great day


Zubair Ahmed profile image

Zubair Ahmed 5 years ago

I think the rich pay too little in taxes and usually the wage earners end up paying the maximum in taxes in comparison to wealthy counterparts.

I would prefer to see a higher tax burden placed on anyone earning above $100,000 and a lower tax burden on everyone earning less than $50,000.

I don't for a moment buy the argument that the rich have done us all a favor by setting up enterprises that benefit society - that is not correct, if the rich really wanted to help they would take less in profits and less in salary/perks and contribute to society more through reduced charges and tax contributions.

The fact is that the rich just want to hoard their wealth and the earning middle class get forced to pay more and more taxes.

Nice hub and very good topic.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Zubair Ahmed- Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinion! There are many ways to look at this argument depending on your basic assumptions about how an economy should be set up based on the laws of government. Defining what’s fair can be is a difficult thing in an economic argument; perhaps what’s fair even misses the larger point of economic freedom in a free society.


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 5 years ago from Key West and Budapest

The last line in your Hub is the most important. I guess that's how our political system works these days, although I still think people who expect handouts exist in the fringe in America - otherwise our country would already be dead. Great piece of writing, keep up the good work. Sean


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Sean Kinn- Thank you so much for commenting! I think your right, the whole article can be summed up with the last phrase- Stealing from one citizen to buy the vote of another! It has a nice ring to it, maybe one of the candidates can use it for a campaign slogan!

The whining voice of the left can be so loud that you forget most people aren't like them, thanks for reminding me. Best to Ya!-WBA


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 5 years ago from Key West and Budapest

If someone already said this, I apologize, but my impression of American politics over the last 20 or so years, is that both parties do their best to toy with the American economy (or do their best to not act, in some instances; not sure which is more destructive). In other words, Clinton set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis by allowing people with no money or potential to earn to purchase houses; and the Democrats furthered that effort with everything they had available to try to destroy the American economy and blame it on Bush II. And now the Republicans and American businesses are holding back with everything they have available to rebuild the American economy (which I assume is too easy to do, minus the politics) - specifically to try to ensure Obama is blamed for No Jobs/Bad Economy and not reelected. Anyone else see it that way?


JON EWALL 5 years ago

wba108@yahoo.com

The Latest On '' PASS THE BILL''

WAIT UNTIL THE BILL IS SCORED BY THE CBO before you can understand the President's plan is the same one he presented on Dec. 4, 2009 and May 13, 2010. Stimulus 1 failed to produce jobs. Jan 2009 unemployment was 7.8%, today it is 9.1%. On last Thurs the President urged Congress to approve his plan. Today, 9/12/11 at a brief press conference ( no questions allowed ) in the rose garden, President Obama produced an UNBOUND copy of the American Jobs Bill held together with a large paper clip ( what a joke ).The bill was on it’s way to Congress today, not prior to his speech to Congress on last Thurs. President Obama announced that he would take his plan to the people and urged the people to call their representatives to ‘’ pass the bill’’. That’s called Obama campaign style propaganda.

Just another Hollywood production for all to see how Congress needs to take immediate action on passing HIS BILL.

SOMEHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA FORGETS PAY-GO LAW and the recent agreement he signed into law , THE NATIONAL DEBT BILL.

In another week he will present more information about the bill that he wants Congress to approve, another bigger joke. Stayed tuned!


JON EWALL 5 years ago

hubbers

AN UPDATE!

President Obama calls the payroll cuts a tax cut, true but not the WHOLE TRUTH. Think About It,

Obama wants to continue the pay roll tax deduction FOR WORKING TAXPAYERS. THE UNEMPLOYED DON'T GET a tax break. Also note what really is happening. The US Treasury is taking money FROM the General Fund and transferring funds to the Social Security Trust Funds to make up for the tax cuts for working citizens. Result is that WE the tax payers are indirectly paying for the tax breaks

NOTE that the cuts are short term as all of the tax credits and breaks are in the Obama plan. The Democrats in Congress have been told by the President that the American Jobs Bill in its present form must be passed as presented by the administration. Members were on the floor last night ( shown on C-Span ) making speeches as to the need for passing the bill.

The truth is that the process is a circle in the same building. The worker keeps a portion of the payroll tax money, the treasury borrows an equivalent amount to put into the trust fund and the workers on unemployment, if Obama gets the unemployment benefits approved gets a check from the government. All coming from increasing the deficit unless the super committee can find cuts to cover the expense.

On Thurs the President said ‘’this is the bill that Congress needs to pass’’, ‘’ no games, no politics no delays’’.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon - He’s says no politics in this phony cut idea- That’s a bald-faced lie! Thanks for the info!-WBA


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

sean kinn- Please give some specifics on this,

" And now the Republicans and American businesses are holding back with everything they have available to rebuild the American economy (which I assume is too easy to do, minus the politics) - specifically to try to ensure Obama is blamed for No Jobs/Bad Economy and not reelected".


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 5 years ago from Key West and Budapest

It's actually just a hunch, but I'll see if I can dig up some facts. The look on President Obama's face these days tends to make me believe I'm right. :-)


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Sean- Thanks for getting back to me! It's highly probable that I'm overlooking a lot of nonsense in my own party.


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 5 years ago from Key West and Budapest

Will, I guess my first point would be that American businesses are holding back $1 trillion or so in cash for some purpose. I'm not an economics buff, but I also keep hearing about Democrat efforts to over-regulate small businesses, I suppose as yet another way to redistribute wealth in order to positively affect their voting base (similar efforts with the housing ploy caused the ongoing worldwide economic crisis, so I think they shot themselves in the foot over the long-term).

Here's the article on the business cash, but this may be dated news, don't know:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/10/28-0

I know there are a number of political fights going on right now, but the biggest standout was the debt default negotiations, which I think the Republicans won by simply allowing President Obama to the first ever prez with "reduced American credit rating" on his "resume" - just in time for 2012.

It just seems to me that the Republicans keep letting Democrats fail in various ways - for political reasons.

Any of that make sense?

I'm rooting for American regardless, because we're the only thing the world has going for it in so far as occupiers of nations that would otherwise constantly be at each others' throats.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

sean kinn- Thanks for taking time to dig up all this info! My take on the debt negotiations is that the Democrats were being the obstructionists. Paul Ryan had the cut, cap and balance proposal that would met the government creditors specific demands for maintaining their AAA plus credit rating. Because of the government’s failure to make deep enough spending cuts, the credit agency downgraded the rating. This seems entirely the fault of the Democrats.


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 5 years ago from Key West and Budapest

Didn't know about the Paul Ryan specifics, although I like him a lot more now that I know that. Allow me to rephrase: I don't think Obama wanted the credit downgrade on his resume, especially not in the year before 2012. How do we explain that?


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Maybe the president thinks he can successfully shift the blame to the hapless GOP, he’s been fairly successful so far. He could be counting on the short memory of the American people to not remember that from the time he was elected until January 2011, the democrats controlled both houses of Congress and went on a record breaking spending spree during a recession. The spending spree included ramming Obamacare and trillions in subsidies down the electorate’s throats.

Moody’s had warned the US Government multiple times back in April that without 4 trillion in real cuts that our credit rating would drop. The President had plenty of time to take action but played politics by rejecting every reasonable spending cut proposal and offering no plan himself. He then tried to call the republican obstructionists when they were hesitant to raise the debt ceiling, dishonestly claiming that to not raising the ceiling would precipitate a downgrade in credit. Moody’s made it clear that spending cuts were the key to credit solvency and not the ability to raise the debt ceiling. A creditor is not impressed if you raise the limit on your credit card; they’re impressed by your plan to get your spending under control and pay your bills.

After giving this long winded response I agree that there are many republicans who also would not hesitate to put politics before principal and discredit the president anyway they can. I know this sounds contradictory! Thank you for making me think this issue through! Regards- WBA


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 5 years ago from Key West and Budapest

I think you're right. I hadn't thought about it that way. Anyway, the best news I've read in some time is in the 3rd paragraph in this article (I'd been hoping ol' Genius Karl was still in the mix): http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/15/presiden...


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Sean- It's definitely true that the president's big government vision is nothing but bad for America, regardless of that,whoever gets elected in 2012 has their work cut out for them! Politicians have been sugar coating our problems for so long, most americans will have a hard time accepting the tough decisions that have to be made to get the country back on track!-WBA


mkvealsh profile image

mkvealsh 5 years ago

At the risk of sounding repetitive--of course we don't want to hike up the tax rates for the wealthy, but how about getting rid of all the loopholes so the very rich at least start PAYING TAXES?

My husband worked a low paying job, all he could find, and we just couldn't make it, even with the government programs available to us. So he started his own business. The regulations on small business owners threaten to undo him, and we are still on some gov programs. Is my hard working, never-home, honest guy really stealing from others by taking government insurance for his children? The poor are not always lazy and the weak are not always thieves.

The rich think the poor are stealing from them, the poor think the rich should support them, and the government wants to babysit all of us.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

WBA

Important coming events to watch.

Sept 22, 2011 in Florida, the Republican Presidential debate sponsored by Fox News and Google. Fox is accepting video questions for the candidates

2011 fiscal year ends on Sept 30, 2011 , CBO estimates another $1.3 deficit

The Stimulus bill expires on Sept.30, 2011, President Obama’s administration is attempting to get 15 more green projects approved. The Solyndra Solar company executives will be questioned next week by a congressional committee.

The Obama ‘’ American Jobs bill ‘’ is being discussed in Congress. No talk has been heard from the President and the Senate regarding submitting a 2012 budget.

This week the Super Committee met and held an OPEN door meeting.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

mkvealsh-

I’m all for getting rid of loopholes because it simplifies the tax code making it more difficult for the government to manipulate the system. Many smaller business fall into the category of the so called rich; they are the ones that provide the majority of jobs for lower income individuals. Individuals with higher income getting special favors from the government is mostly an exception to the rule, these folk are already shouldering a disproportionately high burden of taxes. The problem is that when the government intrudes into the private sector it then creates the conditions for corruption and that's how GE managed not to pay any taxes in the US.

It is true that regulations hurt small businesses “big-time”! I’m a self-employed painting contractor, the new EPA lead laws has crippled my business here in upstate NY. I don’t see it as morally wrong to take advantage of the government programs that are now to your advantage. I think the problem is that people fail to see the “Big Picture” that the economy would be much stronger in the first place if the government had not intruded. It’s a vicious cycle, the government intrudes, creating the need for assistance, then those who get assistance call for more government intrusion. Thanks for your thoughts! -WBA


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon-

Thanks for the news updates. I’m beginning to believe that this may be the president’s final term. Now I’m hearing that this Solyndra issue may be much larger than originally thought. I hope the republicans articulate the clear choice between the tax and spend social engineers and those who would return to what’s made America great, a limited government based on God and the Constitution!-WBA


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 5 years ago from Key West and Budapest

Not that it matters a whole lot, I guess, but isn't it true that most of our actual tax revenue is generated from business corporations, rather than from individuals? Filthy rich individuals may be the same category as business corporations, don't know. Also, are the small biz regulations that are currently stifling things in the States different from state to state?


the bunco squad profile image

the bunco squad 5 years ago from Savannah GA

Here it is plain and simple, if it is as you and those who have responded positively to your column say, and the money is being held back by American corporations and the wealthiest of American individuals for the purpose of affecting political change and thus a more business friendly environment, then these companies and individuals are guilt of treason and sedition against the people of America. And anyone who willingly participates in the furthering of this treacherous act is guilt of coercion and fraternization with the enemy. And if it is as you say, then we should shut them down and reclaim all of the American currency that they hold in their coffers. If you truly believe what you are saying then you should be mad as hell at those who are doing this and demanding that they pay for their crimes. That is unless it is just a political ploy, a con game, a means to defeat your enemy, you know, propaganda.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Bunco squad-

Their not sitting on their money to affect political change, they just don’t want to lose it! Is it really your position that this is treasonous? Are you suggesting that we empower the government to confiscate the money of wealthier Americans? I’m not entirely sure what point your trying to make?-Regards-WBA


jon ewall 5 years ago

the bunco squad

‘’regulations to ensure ethical business practices and oversight where government funds are involved, is the cause of our prolonged plunge into recession. If this is true……’’

NOT TRUE

Since Jan 2009 there are 2600 pages of new regulations placed on businesses at a COST OF $161,000 per year. The Obama Administration is placing an average of 10 new regulations a day. These regulations are included in the healthcare bill, banking ,environment, IRS reporting and many others are being added.

Everyday.

‘’in order to add a little more profit to their bottom line, then they are guilty of treason, and should be dealt with as such.’’

The US Government is the largest employer in the country with a $ 14.3 national debt. No legitimate business can operate without a profit, no profit leads to layoffs and bankruptcy. Profit is good, yes profit is good. Profit goes back to the stock holders ( dividends ) and Uncle Sam (the people ) get a portion too from taxation, 35% today.

just a REMINDER

On Thurs., Sept 22, 2011 in Florida, the Republican Presidential debate sponsored by Fox News and Google. Fox is accepting video questions for the candidates


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Sean-

Actually, I read the statistics not long ago and believe tax revenue collected from individuals is about 6x greater than from businesses. It’s true that some ultra-rich individuals, generate as much income as some corporations but it’s also worth remembering that their income is often subject to multiple layers of taxation. Taxes on corporate profits are taxed again for dividends, capital gains and a host of other taxes.

It’s true that regulations affecting businesses vary from state to state but I believe most are federal. Good to see you again!- Regards and blessings-WBA


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

WBA

On Thurs., Sept 22, 2011,at 9:00pm ET Fox News and Google are sponsoring the Republican Presidential debate from Florida. AN OPEN FORUM DISCUSSION

There definitely will be comments on President Barack Obama’s ‘’Deficit Reduction Plan ‘’announced on Mon. Sept.19, 2011 in the whitehouse rose garden.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon- Thank you for the update, I will be watching to see how the candidates conduct themselves. I’m still not sure which candidate I’m supporting.-WBA


PoliticsNOW profile image

PoliticsNOW 5 years ago from New York

Just a few points. Taxes are at an all time low at 35%. At a time where we have a revenue problem and a spending problem we have to try something eles that actually works as we know from history. Asking the top earners to pay just another 4% the Clinton levels is not asking too much. We borrowed 3 trillion to pay for the tax cuts that were supposed to create jobs. Well they FAILED and BIG TIME.

If tax cuts create jobs then where are they? The rich are making RECORD profits right now shipping jobs overseas. This is the problem we need to focus on. Having a 10,000 page five foot tall tax code FULL of LOOPHOLES is killing us slowly.

The Bush tax cuts which weresupposed to be TEMP. Did NOT create jobs. Sorry but you can't change THAT FACT. What makes you think they will work now?

We need to take that revenue, create jobs and increase demand. Once you do that the rich will just profit more in the long run. Getting people off unemployment, foodstamps and wellfare. Saving even more money


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

PoliticsNOW- Thank you for your informed opinions! It is true that the top tax rates are at an all-time low but as I demonstrated from this Hub, those in the higher brackets are still bearing a disproportionately high burden of tax. The truth is that since about the 1950’s individuals in the highest tax bracket have paid about 20% of their income in taxes regardless of the tax rate.

Historically speaking tax revenues have generally increased when tax rates are cut. I understand the president not long ago said it would be foolish to raise taxes in a recession and he’s right because trying to raise taxes on those in the upper brackets would hurt the middle class and poor the most. The reason for this is that the poor and middle class largely depend on those in the upper income brackets for jobs and to buy the products and services they produce. Those in the upper brackets also provide most of the venture capital necessary to get the economy going. If you try raising their taxes they just won’t invest or hire people, they can afford to live on their savings until their prospects improve.

I’m all for simplifying the tax code and closing loopholes but raising taxes is not the answer. Historically speaking, putting more money in the hands of the government seldom is used to pay down deficits because it’s more politically advantageous to buy votes with new spending programs, that why I believe we need a balanced budget amendment .

The Bush tax cuts did work, there where record high employment levels for most of the Bush presidency. There is little that the Democratic controlled Congress, Senate or President Bush did to precipitate the 2008 economic meltdown. There were numerous factors such as the housing bubble, the Tech bust, and the actions of the Fed and the effects of 911 and two wars, that all played into the 2008 melt down.- Regards-WBA


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 5 years ago from Chicago

This entire article is fantastic! It is chock full of fabulous sentences. For one, you asked:

"Is it moral for those who pay no taxes to vote on how much to tax those who are required to pay tax?"

What a question!! I didn't read the other comments above. Did anyone take that question on?

You asked: "is it morally right for one American to live at the expense of another American"

I would say NO! Unless it is a voluntary act of charity.

But as you noted brilliantly "Because the government has imposed a high tax rate, less is available to give charitably give to those in need, this includes family members."

This fact is little noticed. With half of every dollar earned in America being taken by one tax or the other, the amount that could be given to charity is cut by TRILLIONS!!

And you are spot on that "The wealthy in this country for the most part have gained their wealth through providing something of value to others. Their contributions have created opportunities for others, we should be grateful to these people and strive to do what they’ve done and not penalize them for their achievements."

Amen!

As you said so well "Most of us desire to help the poor and destitute but will acknowledge that rewarding dysfunctional behavior is not helping but enabling many to remain as they are. Many poor people have poor values, bad attitudes, irresponsible habits and various addictions. Local, private charities are often much better suited than government programs to evaluate the needs of poor and destitute and help these people. Government programs on a whole have just increased the cycle of dependency and rewarded poor behavior."

Well said!

I love your Religion and Civic Engagement chart! I would like to know how Liberals explain that away.

And the chart that follows shows a great truth: "The more liberal the less charitable, the more conservative the more charitable."


JON EWALL 5 years ago

wba

''The reason for this is that the poor and middle class largely depend on those in the upper income brackets for jobs and to buy the products and services they produce.''

Just an update on the why businesses are not hiring.

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CAIN said that he wants everyone to be rich and to be able to have a job. The Obama Administration has been told that NEW government regulations are hurting the opportunity of business to hire.

Costly Regulations Cost Us American Jobs

According to a September 2010 report from the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually—enough money for businesses to provide 17.5 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $100,000. As of 2008, small businesses—which have created 64 percent of all new jobs in the past 15 years—face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms.

The Obama Jobs Bill gives business a tax credit ( tax credit is short term, ends in 2012) which is not enough to hire new workers. Again Smoke and Mirrors.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

James A Watkins-

Thank you so much for stopping by! Thanks for actually reading the entire article and even the comments.

To be forced to to have someone else live at your expense is by definition, slavery!

Allowing to government to redistribute, creates a resentment for those forced to pay and an entitlement mentality for those on the receiving end! There's a huge difference between freely giving and getting robbed! This harms relationships between people because people are often denied the experience of giving others and others are often denied the opportunity of allowing others to express their love to you when you're personally in need!-Regards and blessings-WBA


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon-

" As of 2008, small businesses—which have created 64 percent of all new jobs in the past 15 years—face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms."

This is outrageous! What in the name of common sense would cause the government to put such a load on America's job creator's?

I'm taking a closer look at Herman Cain as a candidate, I hope he can win! We'll need a pretty strong candidate to win the White House unless the president makes some blounders that everyone will recognize. Unfortunately the smoke and mirror's seem to continue to work.-Regards-WBA


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

WBA

The President's jobs bill is scheduled to be debated in the Senate this coming week. Check c-spans program listings, they should have some hearings to show.

The 5.4 surtax on millionaires reminded me of the luxury taxes Congress placed on high expensive products some years ago.

The millionaires just stopped buying airplanes, boats, cars and stopped investing. Many of the effected industries went down the tubes and many workers were laid off.

Senator Coburn found $ 9trillion of waste in the government. President Obama and Congress needs to start cleaning up Washington, $4 trillion shouldn’t be hard to find for starters.

Keep hubbing, have a good day.


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 5 years ago from Key West and Budapest

Jon, When President Obama does stuff like that (the "5.4 surtax on millionaires"), it really does appear that he's trying to destroy our economy. And anyone with half a brain knows that wealth redistribution doesn't work (North Korea is way up on the list of Failed Nations), because they logically don't want someone to redistribute *their* wealth, when they finally make it. Does he really think he's going to get reelected with polices like that? Sean


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon-

”The 5.4 surtax on millionaires reminded me of the luxury taxes Congress placed on high expensive products some years ago.

The millionaires just stopped buying airplanes, boats, cars and stopped investing. Many of the effected industries went down the tubes and many workers were laid off.”

Jon you remember a definition of insanity, I think whoever proposed this surtax should consider getting a mental health check up! LoL! From what I’ve heard Senator Coburn is one of the most conservative members of the Senate but he’s friendly with the president, so maybe he can pull this off! Thanks for the update.-WBA


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

wba

When someone works 3 days a week to pay for all tax obligations, something needs adjustment. Remember the payroll tax elimination only applies to those who have a job. Some 14.3 million taxpayers aren't getting a tax break, thanks to OBAMA AND THE GOVERNMENT.


charlie424 5 years ago

Why would Washington be against taxing the higher incomes .... LIKE DAH!!..... Because that would mean they would have to pay higher taxes. STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

charlie424-

The reason the liberals want higher taxes are largely political. Class warfare is the stock and trade of the political left. Liberals tap into the jealousy that is inheritant in many people towards those who have achieved much in life and have benifited financially.

It's of course a lot easier to blame the rich guy for unfairly exploiting the system, than it is for people to ask the hard questions of why they might not have found success.

Often politicians can raise taxes on their political enemies, while providing loopholes subsidies and kickbacks to their political allies. Also keep in mind that we're talking about taxes on income so those who are already wealthy aren't nearly as much effected as those who are currently attempting to become wealthy.-WBA


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

WBA

OBAMA'S ORDERS TO CONGRESS WAS TO PASS THE BILL about a month ago

Today,10/11/11, the Obama jobs bill ( no amendments allowed by Senator Reid ) was defeated 50-49 as was predicted by the Democrat leadership. There were 3 Democrats voting against the bill, Senators REID,TESTER AND NELSON.

The President, Barack Obama, after demanding Congress to’’ pass the bill’’ now is willing to attempt to pass the spending parts of the bill. The President wants Congress to pass $175 billion for infrastructure, money for state employees and other public projects. The President remains in campaign mode blaming the Republicans for the rejection of his spending plan.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon-

Sounds like the liberals are in political overdrive but lack any real answers to spur job growth!-WBA


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

For the record, Peter doesn't even live in this country! He has ZERO worth when it comes to weighing in on this subject!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

American Romance - Actually Peter now lives in Alaska from what I understand! Although I strongly disagree with Peter's views, I do welcome his opinions.

I think a lot of the wrong thinking on issues like this, is the assumption that if something's not fair it become the governments job to fix it! But in the real world there's a lot of things that are unfair, for one I don't look like Brad Pitt, play basketball like LaBron James or write like Sheakspeare. How's the government supposed to fix that?


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

And I don't have a new Harley nor a new bassboat! In fairness I should because my neighbor does! Alaska is a good place for Peter, isn't that the only state that doesn't collect taxes? ..........funny how he should end up there! haha, ........just seems ironic that a liberal would move someplace where he doesn't contribute. dont you think? I thought contribution was the big thing for liberals!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Thanx, you just made me laugh out loud! This is humorous and Ironic that Peter, would choose to live in the most conservative state in the country- the home of the despised Sarah Palin!


I Saw Marty profile image

I Saw Marty 4 years ago

No, we shouldn't increase the rate on the rich. The amount of money someone pays is more if they make more, even if the RATE is the same. Example: if the tax rate is 10%, a person who makes $10,000 pays $1,000 but a person who makes $1,000,000 is paying $100,000. I'm tired of the "class warfare" nonsense in this country, because there's nobody who doesn't want to be rich (with the exception of that baby in the Capital One ads LOL).


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

I Saw Marty - Good point about the 10% tax, even the biblical tithe was a flat tax. As I told (AR) in the comment above, the root of a lot of the wrong thinking on issues like these is that if somebody thinks something is not fair it becomes to governments job to fix it! He mentions that just because his friend has a new bass boat and Harley doesn't mean he needs to complain to the government. I said I don't look like Brad Pitt or write like Shakespeare but how's the government supposed to fix that!


Jason R. Manning profile image

Jason R. Manning 4 years ago from Sacramento, California

WBA, great article, the comments speak volumes about what the left, middle and right believe. I agree with a consumption tax, it is long overdue. Get rid of the IRS, when people purchase goods, the Government gets what it needs and learns to budget that income like every other living American. God Bless.


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 4 years ago from Key West and Budapest

Jason/WBA, the consumption tax sounds like a good idea. Germany's is at about 20% right now, I believe. Sean


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi jason- Thank you for your generous comments, its great to hear from you! Your ideas are definitely worth a try. The presence of the IRS only incentivises political pandering and wealth redistribution. Either get rid of it or severly limit what it can do!

A Consumption tax has a lot going for it, in that in encourages savings and investment while providing a built in incentive for the government to live within its means!

sean kinn- How are you my friend? Thanks for stopping by, I think it would be a good idea to keep an eye on Germany to see how their tax plan is working!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

Obama is pushing Congress to pass the Buffet Rule bill. What Obama and Buffet are not telling the American people is how the bill will effect the small investor and others who rely on dividends and other income producing investments. Check these out for FAIRNESS.

Buffett Rule Bill Before the Senate Is a Small Step Towards Tax Fairness

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/buffett_rule_bil...

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

Eleven ways Warren Buffett is lying with Barak Obama

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/eleve-wa...

4/10/12

Potential impact of Obama's 'Buffett rule'

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/in.../v/1555656093001/potential-impact-of-obamas-buffett-rule/?playlist_id=86929


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon- Great to hear from you as always! As usual the President is teamed up with his ultra-wealthy supporters with their usual cynical appeal to fairness, while all the while feathering their own nests! I'm going to take a careful look at what their up to now, whatever it is, its never good news for the tax payers!


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 4 years ago from Key West and Budapest

I'd always wondered about the "ultra-wealthy supporters" thing, and now I get it: There are two separate groups of elite in America and around the world.1) Those who take advantage of underlings (me, for example) with their "cynical appeal to fairness, while all the while feathering their own nests." 2) Conversely, there must be a second group of mega wealthy who actually understand how businesses and capitalism operate with respect to America's long-term economic health. Did I get that right? :-)


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

sean kinn- I'm far from an expert but I think you pretty much got it! Money is highly personal, people are going to generally do what's in their own best interest, if it helps the country that's great but if it doesn't I don't think they'll be losing sleep at night.

I think that the 2nd group of the mega wealthy acts as I just described, many believe in free markets and in America but at the same time, they will still act to protect their money in every way possible that doesn't conflict with their values and sometimes in ways that do!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

Check this links out.

1. 4/15/12

Obama chief strategist David Axelrod

Live and uncut, scare tactics?

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/inde.../v/1563643318001/is-president-obama-vulnerable/?playlist_id=86913

2.4/10/12

Potential impact of Obama's 'Buffett rule'

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/in.../v/1555656093001/potential-impact-of-obamas-buffett-rule/?playlist_id=86929

3.The President's Speech Distorts the Truth to Distract From His Failed Record

http://www.facebook.com/notes/paul-ryan/the-presid...

You Be the JUDGE.

President Obama’s 2011 tax returns rate was . 20.5 % , a lot less than his secretary.

Note that Wallace questioned if the president will be sending a check to the treasury.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon- Wallace really made Axelrod unconfortable with his questions! For sure he caught Obama in an outright lie when he stated that the revenue brought in by the buffett rule would stabilize the economy.

It was also pretty clear that the presidents attacks on the Ryan plan were baseless!

My favorite though, is wallace's question as to why the president didn't offer to pay more into the treasury seeing that he's been preaching so much about paying your fair share!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

That's why liberals can't stand Fox News. The actual live videos, uncut shows the facts before the press distorts the facts.

PASS THE AXLEROD VIDEO AROUND.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Its hard to understand the whining about Fox news, when the liberals have every other major network! Even Fox news isn't entirely conservative from what I've seen. It seems many liberals won't be satisfied till they have a single state run media outlet ie. "Pravda" ironically meaning "truth" but in reality anything but!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

Check out the talking points.

4/10/12

Potential impact of Obama's 'Buffett rule'

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/in.../v/1555656093001/potential-impact-of-obamas-buffett-rule/?playlist_id=86929

http://hubpages.com/@jon-ewall


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo

A recent post.

Buffet stated that the rich are willing to pay more IF THEY KNEW THAT THE TAXES COLLECTED WOULD GO TO REDUCING THE DEFICIT.

OBAMA recently stated that the rich paying more would allow the government TO SPEND MORE on intra structure and various other projects.

Obama speaks with forked tongue, in other words , he is lying .

The Senate voted today to put the bill on the floor. The Buffet bill failed to get the necessary votes to move the bill to the floor. The House will be voting on their version of the Buffet bill this week.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon- So far obama seems to have offered no credible plan to get spending under control! He seems to suggest that raising taxes on the wealthy along with bringing the troops home will allow the government to raise enough revenue to both offset his planned spending increases and pay down the deficit. Only a fool would belief this, First of all their is no proof that raising taxes on the wealthy will bring in additional revenue. Counting on future reductions in military spending in a dangerous world is a dubious policy at best. Obama has already stated his intentions to move ahead onto new spending projects. Clinton slashed our military and intelligents spending to perilously low levels. The result was 911 and the Bush administration having to increase military spending to make up shortfalls caused by Clinton.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon-"Buffet stated that the rich are willing to pay more IF THEY KNEW THAT THE TAXES COLLECTED WOULD GO TO REDUCING THE DEFICIT."

Obama and Buffett are both lying on course, if Obama wanted to cut spending, he'd have to start by repealing Obamacare and work backwards. Suggesting that Buffett and the wealthy in this nation would be willing to have their taxes increased to pay down the deficit is very doubtful. It's more likely that Buffett has some inside deal that he's hatched with the government to feather his own nest while eliminating potential competitors with tax increases.This is the way it has always worked!


Michael Furdek 4 years ago from California

Thanks for the good article. Though there is too much logic in your argument for some people to understand.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Michael Furdek- Thanks for your gracious comments, sorry I missed your post!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

''This Bush tax cuts did work the economy grew and more revenue was brought into federal coffers''

On 7/25/12

Senate narrowly approves Democratic bill on Bush-era tax rates. A victory for the DEMOCRATS?

The Senate approved the bill on a 51-48 vote,

The partisan 45-54 vote on the GOP bill would have allowed tax cut for all

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/25/senate-...

The House had already passed an extension of the Bush tax rates which included everyone. The Senate bill now goes over to the House as required by Congressional rules. The President and members of Congress have publicly stated that raising taxes in a bad economy is not the right thing to do. One must wonder how idiotic to believe raising taxes on the job makers, giving government more revenue than allowing the job makers to retain more money to invest, hire more people and trying to survive is the smartest move. The effect of not changing the tax rates for workers who do not have jobs is meaningless and will not help the economy.

JOBS JOBS is the answer.


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 4 years ago from Key West and Budapest

I still think Republicans are holding back on a lot of ideas that will fix our economy. Politics as usual, I guess ...


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

sean kinn 17

''Republicans are holding back on a lot of ideas ''

THERE ARE 30 JOBS BILLS PASSED BY THE HOUSE that Senator Reid will not put on the floor to vote on. Why, Obama and Reid knows that some of the Democrat Senators will vote to pass them.The President says that Congress is holding up the jobs bills. The American people believe that the Republicans are the problem when it is the Democrat Senate , the Democrat Senate is never mentioned by the President. wonder why?

http://www.majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon-Sometimes I wonder if those who continue to press for higher taxes actually want to run our economy into the ground. Why they would do this I'm not sure but I have some ideas? Power and control are the most likely motivations.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Sean- Thanks for your comments! Jon seems to have a pretty compelling argument, in what sense are Republican's holding back their ideas if 30 jobs bills have been passed by the House?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

WBA

President Barak Obama once said to the press. '' you need to see who I have surrounded myself with''.

The plan was to change America the way it was, the plan is a class discrimination between the rich and the poor under the guise of helping the middle class.Actually Obama and the Progressive Democrats has destroyed the middle class and made them a statistic in the poverty ranks.

Check this link out. IT TELLS THE STORY. The link has been denied by many of the hubbers on the left.

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31606...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=...


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 4 years ago from Key West and Budapest

I think they're being slick about how they're going about it. I'm not political science expert, but the way politics plays out sometimes always surprises me. Take the recent Obamacare Supreme Court decision: Dude isn't fooling anyone. He's a very conservative Republican, so why in the world would he side with liberals and allow Obamacare to continue to exist, if it were not for an ulterior motive?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

sean kinn

The only part of Obamacare that was approved was that the portions of the law is a tax and not a penalty as the administration stated.

The law is a fraud on the American people and was a lie from the very beginning. The Speaker of the House rammed the bill thru by ignoring the procedures of both Houses. The backdoor negotiations , the payoff ( bribes ) promises and the total refusal to include amendments from the other side of the isle was a pitiful example of our government NOT working for the good of the people.

The law is completely a partisan law in everyway and should be repealed. Yes, there are parts of the law that should be kept. Parts of the law that taxes providers and recipients need to be revoked. How stupid can one believe that if the providers are taxed, that the cost will not be passed on to the people.

Today, many large cities have clinics and hospitals for the poor, they get services, yes on a wait until ???.

The constitution is the foundation of our society meaning that making law is a system when all elected officials are given a voice in legislation. The law did not provide bi partisan participation as required by the checks and balances of the Constitution. For your information parts of the law is still being written. Written not by our elected officials but by others appointed by the President. Tell me if that’s the way our Congress works best?

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/07/07/...

http://jon-ewall.hubpages.com/


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon

Wow! After reading parts of your article link, its not hard to believe that those associated with George Soros are willing to do almost anything to destroy the free markets and undermine America. I hope that's not the case with the president but it may well be!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Sean

I was stunned also by Roberts ruling! My take as to why he sided with the court liberals was just plain lack of nerve. Its easy to get caught up in the culture of Washington and the exilerating feeling of having major press publications, writing glowing reports about you! If Roberts stood his ground and supported the Constitution, there would have been non stop vitrol from the main stream press and the liberals who control Washington.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon

I'm ot sure whether I heard this from you or someone else but I heard that Obamacare gives so much power an descretion to the head of the department of Health and Human services that they might as well have written the law! Another words, Obamcare is like a blank check given to the President himself or those under his direct control!

The idea that Obamacare saves money is dangerously naïve and easily refuted! Think of any major government program and name one that saved taxpayer money? Case closed!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

WBA

The truth is in the pudding. By far many rules of Congress were broken. As one Congressman said '' we can do it because we won''.The people were blindsided by promises by the winning party of transparent and open government.In nov., the people will have the chance to correct the problems.

May God Bless America


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon

Might makes right, so much for a kinder and gentler government! It's harder than ever to believe in hope and change now, though I knew better to start with!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

What Obama is telling the people on the campaign trail is a distortion of the truth regarding the '' Bush tax cuts'', the Bush tax cuts were taken in 2001 and 2003.The truth is today, they should be noted as the Bush TAX RATES, hence not approving or extending them is a TAX INCREASE. Note that the tax rates were cut for everyone who was required to pay FEDERAL TAXES.

The Obama re election team will do anything necessary to elect the President. Senator Reid’s actions on the Senate floor is despicable and degrading for a leader of the Senate to make statements about a candidate for the presidency. The party nomination has yet to be voted on for Romney. The political campaign does not belong in the Senate


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon- As usual you're 100% correct, not extending the Bush tax rates is of course a tax increase, you would have to be pretty foolish to believe otherwise! I'm not sure the democratic leadership knows what country they represent, their delusions are scary! It seems they call evil good and good evil! Their consistantly wrong about everything, I hope the American people rise up and throw these gangsters out of office before its to late!


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 4 years ago from Key West and Budapest

I call them "backward people." If there was a right way to do something, even if they knew it was the right way, they would do the exact opposite, often just to spite people. The strangest part is that they cry "fowl!" if someone treats them in this manner: They don't like it when they are wronged.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

Hubbers

It is difficult for die hard Liberals, Leftists or Democrats to understand the truth when they , without question, believe what they are being told by the President,Democrat leaders and/or the mainstream medias.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Sean- The sad thing is that the often well meaning left paves the way for tyranny. Tyrants will be the first to cast these idealists aside once they're in power. I see the delusions of the left as being beyond backwards, I believe their deceptions to be spiritual in nature because they have for the most part cast Christ aside in their quest for heaven on earth.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon

As I mentioned to Sean, I believe the ultimate problem with the left is spiritual because of their rejection of Christ and their embrace of their secular religion of the state. Leftism as a religion of sorts explains their irrationality and blind obediance. No doubt the collective entitlement culture discourages independent thinking which feeds into this kind of behavior.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

Just like Hitler, he impegnated the youth of the nation. The people must wake up to the treath.

‘’ The Life of Julia’’, A Obama propaganda Campaign ad Obama’s Vision of the future for America http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=...


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon- Too bad it took Julia 67 years to finally realize socialism doesn't work! Great video!


Jenna Pope profile image

Jenna Pope 4 years ago from Southern California

I agree with John that the left embrace the religion of state. We need to put Christianity back into government. Then everything else will work itself out. No socialism!!! Great Hub. Voted up.


sean kinn profile image

sean kinn 4 years ago from Key West and Budapest

Maybe they could "stealth" Christianity back into government? Christian values allow a lot of people to succeed, whether they realize it or not. The values were "stealthed" into the US military's Values and Responsibilities years ago, and they work great for keeping military folk on the straight and narrow (for those who actually pay attention to the lists, or for those who watch the comical mistakes of those who do not pay attention to the ready-made lists). :-)


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

''Should the Rich pay more in Taxes?'' The rich don't bury their money, if they did they wouldn't become rich. The Government isn't happy with taking a 35% cut of rich's profits in tax donations to the treasury ( the people ).Think about it as if the Government's cut is denying one a job ( money in my pocket) so that I can enjoy the fruits of my labor. In 4 years, $5 trillion in deficits when there is $9 trillion waste in Government. Let's vote the SPENDERS OUT in Nov.

The Senator Coburn report '' WASTE IN GOVERNMENT'' http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/rightnow...


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jenna Pope - I agree with you, the core of America's problem is spiritual. Thanx for your insights!

Sean- I didn't know that the US military had adopted christian values as their standard but to come to think of it- it makes sense! Maybe that explains the lefts loathing of the military!

Jon-The investments and spending of the rich spur economic growth thereby improving the lot of society as a whole. Money taken out of the private sector (via taxing the job creators i.e the supposed rich) and is diverted to government- slows growth and stagnates the economy thereby hurting society but helping to empower the government ( ie. politicians) by creating dependancy via the welfare state!


izettl profile image

izettl 4 years ago from The Great Northwest

Awesome points here. I believe the rich are those that hire and should inspire. Due to an abundance of government handouts working to make it to the top isn't as desirable as free money and programs. Why punish those that make our country what it is? Those that contribute to charities as well. I never get the mentalities of those that keep pushing for taxing rich more. What's wrong with a country that encourages handouts and discourages success? Awesome hub, great thoughts...just wish more people had this reasoning too.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY Author

izettl- I am very honored by your visit and words of praise! Your so right, what kind of distorted and convoluted thinking would cause people to want to punish those whose success has benifited everyone and also create an environment that encourages dependance?

The free market creates wealth thereby creating wealthy people, what's so bad about that? There are those that use their wealth to buy themselves an unfair advantage in the marketplace but, I see this as largely a product of government overreach in the private sector, which picks winners and losers thereby making the free market , less free! This is happening now when our government subsidizes one sector of the economy at the expense of another. Obamacare, Dodd-frank, new EPA measures along with an unpresidented increase in government regulations and control, are all examples of excessive government intrusion into the private sector which almost always kills the economy and stifles freedom!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa

WBA

One must try to understand the make up of our present government, elected by the people on a majority vote.Since 2008 the OBAMA administration has increased the size of government by adding a 135,150 new employees, a 6.5% growth in government.

The private sector is where unemployment has not changed as Obama promissed in 2008.

The solution to the ''fiscal cliff'' is simply to follow the law passed by President Obama and the Democrats in 2010.If the President want a tax increase,he must cut present spending to offset the tax increase to be deficit neutral. The deficit in 2011 and 2012 is over $ 3 trillion .Any law that is not enforced is not worth the paper it is written on.

'' WE ARE A NATION OF THE RULE OF LAW '' REALLY

http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/rightnow...

Wishing you and yours a merry Christmas and a happy New Year


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon, thanks for your insightful comments! It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why the economy is stagnated and unemployment remains high. As you mentioned the current administration has increased the size of government and the deficit thereby taking away vital resources from the private sector needed to sustain economic growth.

What a sad state of affairs when the government has to have talks to decide if their going to decide to enforce a law already passed! It seems many in government believe that following the law is optional, sounds more like the Sultan's court than representative government!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

WBA

The Republicans need to expose Obama and Democrats as to all the wasteful spending. Cutting the waste will solve many of the present day problems.

The mainstream media is doing their part to surpress the truth.Obama hasn't made official presentation of his cuts as yet (12/12/12). The Senate has yet to pass a bill. Blame the Republicans, some what disengeuious.


hockey8mn profile image

hockey8mn 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deciding who pays more in taxes is always a lose-lose situation. Everyone (even if they don't pay) feels they give more than enough. It is like working. No one, for the most part, will say they are lazy and/or a bad worker. Lets be serious here, not everyone is a great worker. I am for a flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income as the next person. Yes, the wealthy will pay more. To me, that is fair. However, life isn't fair. Also, in order to do that, our government would have to plan a better budget. Not likely to happen.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

hockey8mn - Thanks so much for your visit and insights! I think a flat tax sounds like a good idea because it takes the politics out of the tax issue. I also see a flat tax as being more equitable and in line with the Constitution. Its more equitable in the sense that everyone pays the same percentage of income, similar to the biblical tithe; more Constitutional in that it doesn't redistribute income!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

The debate should not be about taxes, it should be about jobs, getting people back to work so that they can pay taxes. The solution is in cutting spending and increasing revenue. The government receives $5 billion/day and spends $11 trillion/day.

PAY-GO LAW WAS TO CURTAIL spending. the size of government has increased 25% under the Obama administration and the Democrats. The Democrats have had 2/3s control of the government since 2007. The recession started in Dec. 2007, what does that tell someone. Check this link

12/19/12

President Obama’s Fiscal Cliff Plan “Balance” not true

http://www.speaker.gov/general/president-obama-s-f...

2/13/10 Pay Go Law

The President lied?

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon- What your saying is painfully obvious for those with even a basic knowledge of economics! Its sometimes frustrating that so many are fooled by words without substance. No tax, could ever keep pace with what the government spends today, if fact tax increases are likely to decrease long term revenue.

Keep up the good work and keep reminding people of the simple facts of the paygo legislation and the administrations promises. Maybe as people start feeling the pain of the governments irresponsible spending binge, they'll begin to pay attention to the simple facts.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

An AP article dated 12/21/12 by David Espo , ‘’Obama ‘’sounds ‘ cliff’ alarm ‘’was another distortion of recent events in Congress and the House. I viewed the Obama press conference on Fox News ( UNCUT). Just another OBAMA press conference with no questions allowed. From the article, Obama said that he spoke with House Speaker Boehner- architect of the failed House bill- and meeting with majority leader Harry Reid. Reid was a no show at the podium.

.http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/12/21/11686/li...

The true fact is that the House has already passed a bill to solve the ‘’cliff ‘’ crisis. What happened on Thurs was that Boehner plan ‘B’ was rejected by Republican members. The press reported a defeat for Boehner, when in fact democracy prevailed. The House has voted and passed a bill. The Senate leadership refuses to put the House bill on the floor for debate, amend or vote/pass, ‘’CENSORSHIP’’. The President continues to blame Congress when in fact, it’s the Senate who have yet to advance the House bill. The media continues to assist the President’s distortions, depriving the public of the TRUTH.

THE HOUSE BILL, makes the rich pay more taxes by taking away certain write offs. The rich will pay more as the President wants. Raising taxes on anyone should follow the Pay-Go law that a majority Democrat Congress and a Democrat President pushed thru in 2010. With the Nov 2010 elections coming up , the Democrats looked like heroes. The only problem today is that they refuse to follow the law.

For now, the ball is in the Senate. The President can show leadership if he orders Harry to go forward and allow ALL Senators their say and vote .The people should demand open, transparent government as Obama promised in 2008 and during his first term-C-SPAN all the way!

please,excuse the long post.


wileyspeaks profile image

wileyspeaks 3 years ago from Auburn, Indiana

The part that irks me the most, as in most articles about class warfare, taxes, weathly, poor, and government is the presumptions of what the poor class is all about. The poor are just out there waiting for your handout. Waiting for the rich to get jabbed with higher taxes so that they can live off others for the rest of their lives. The comments that the poor are ill educated and spend money irresponsible. I say this because I would be considered in the poor bracket. My husband works very hard and works between 50 and 60 hours a week. I am unable to work because I have a special needs daughter. Therefore, we don't have a lot of choices on how much income we take in or what our financial portfolio looks like, I have a college education, I have had very successful careers in the past but don't have that option right now, do I think I should be able to vote and voice my opinion, YES! Do I think that my rights should be taken away to have an opinion because my bank account isn't in the right financial bracket? NO! I do enjoy reading your article, because I love a good debate and of course reading the comments posted but sometimes I feel like most of the time people that are in my position don't speak up because they feel embarassed but we are not all, drug addicts, tattooed, alcholics, low morals, ignorant people.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

wileyspeaks

May God bless you and your family thru these troubled times. Wishing you and your family a blessed Merry Christmas and a happy prosperous New Year. Family is the fondation of our great country.


wileyspeaks profile image

wileyspeaks 3 years ago from Auburn, Indiana

Thank you Jon Ewall, God has blessed me with a daughter that teaches me something new everyday. Merry Christmas to you and your family!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Should the rich pay more in taxes? To what end? I don''t believe they should pay more because I don't see what that will accomplish, other than make the LESS tech and the poor feel better. We sure won't get out of debt with it; it'll just weaken the economy more as they become less rich, can provide fewer jobs, shop less, purchase fewer goods and services and a downward spiral begins. I don't believe people should be penalize for being in the right place, right time and having the right skill set.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

wileyspeaks - I'm in the same boat as you in many respects! I agree there are many good and hard working people who are struggling financially that have no desire for handouts or pity. My problem is with politicians who exploit the poeples hard times by trying to play one group against another. This just makes everyone losers!


wileyspeaks profile image

wileyspeaks 3 years ago from Auburn, Indiana

wba108- yes that is very true, it seems that they like to paint this picture of what many "assume" being poor looks like and it just isn't the case. If I had it my way we wouldn't be in the situation and I try very hard to be smart with the money we do have and pay are bills as best we can. I don't aspire to be ultra rich, I just aspire to be able to pay all my bills. It just hurts when you have politicians put you in a box this is what the left looks like, this is what the right looks like, this is what poor looks like, this is what rich looks like, so on and so forth. Thank you wba108 for posting this it is nice to know that your not alone!!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon Ewall- It seems that the main stream press rarely misses an opportunity to distort the record, when they report on the GOP.

If the consequences of the media's actions weren't so damning, I might be impressed by their hollywood caliber acting!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

The MSM is quite liberal, and disses the GOP when it can. Why, liberal Jake Tapper even admitted that ABC sat on the Benghazi story after it had it. I wonder why? I'm sure it was NOT because not all the facts were in. That hasn't stopped them before!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

It was all about the election, the media is a part of the cover up. There is not doubt that the answer goes right to the top top, the main man.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

teamrn - The main stream media is just a propaganda outlet for the left, they haven't done anything like report the news with any balance whatsoever! In their minds, maybe they think they're actually reporting the news but you know the left, they have an amazing ability to be wrong about everything!

I used to doubt myself, thinking these liberals must be right about something but now I've come to believe they are 100% wrong about everything? How can this be? I'll have to cover this in another hub because you need a background in the psychology of human nature to thoroughly understand it!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Wbat, I agree with you; the MSM lost it's desire-or is it ability-to report the news. I think MSNBC lost it when we lost Tim Russert. We all knew where he stood, left, but he was fair and reported (like the New York Times USED to) ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT...

Jon, I didn't say the media was part of a cover-up. I merely said they didn't report on Benghazi when they should have, like they should have. Benghazi is news and the media should have covered it with all the forcefulness that the event required. The fact that they didn't, makes them look NOTHING BUT COMPLICIT. They are so much in love with President Obama, that Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell, 2 veteran , WIDELY RESPECTED AS JOURNALISTS, have been reduced in stature in the minds of many, to that of cub reporters.


Glass-Jewelry profile image

Glass-Jewelry 3 years ago from Presezzo, Italy

In my humble opinion, everyone has to pay taxes, but not the same way.

There must be a threshold that I call "guarantee of a decent life", below which no income should be taxed.

Then there must be a central band in which the income should be taxed in a very reasonable way and very accepted by the citizens, and finally a third category, that of the rich should be taxed in excess.

Let me give an example, if a state administration that occurs within the $ 20,000 of income an average family can live a dignified life, up to $ 20,000 no taxes.

The second band could be that from 20000 to 200000, but the taxation must not exceed the reasonableness of 30%.

Finally, those who earn more than 200,000 would be taxed at no more than 45%.

If we think it is right and proper that there is a tax equal for all as the 10% flat above mentioned, it would mean that the gap between rich and poor people could become so huge as to create social conflicts and grievances not bearable by a civilized nation.

It 's obviously right that there is a well-being different between those who earn more and those who earn less, but this difference must be accepted by all, so it must be within the limits of reasonableness.

I am talking about the situation in Italy, but every country should not find it difficult to establish these three bands.

if the administration of a nation is unable to locate these three bands, in the sense that it can not raise the money necessary for its state operation, it means that it is not able to govern the country and therefore must resign to make way for those who has a better idea about it.

Not need to make complicated things simple.

Marco


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Dear Glass-Jewelry (I surmise that you make glass jewelry!), I have a few thoughts about your proposal. There are a lot of "IT'S OBVIOUS THAT" in your proposal, What may be obvious to you may not be so obvious to me or someone else.

Also, income of more than $200,000 taxed at no more than 45%. What if there's a family of 8 living on that income? What if there are special needs for one of the children of that household. There are so many circumsances which could arise in which an income of $200,000 makes one barely able to get by; where my income of $23,000 is adequate.

Then there's your statement, "It 's obviously right that there i" What is so obvious? Who is to determine what is OBVIOUS, what is REASONABLE.

So many generalities, that I really don't know what it is that you're proposing. I'm confused, help me out here. Annie


wmhoward4 profile image

wmhoward4 3 years ago from Baltimore Maryland (USA)

Does anyone ever ask "Should the idle contribute more work and time?"


lanablackmoor profile image

lanablackmoor 3 years ago from New England

An interesting opening to a very complex conversation. I really don't think the rich should pay less than other tax payers, which ends up being the case, thanks to certain tax cuts and loopholes that become available when you can afford a personal CPA. However, I don't think that anyone, regardless of income, should be forced to support someone else. I used to be very fiscally liberal but I take a much more libertarian approach now. You're right in that higher taxes to pay for pet projects and entitlements discourage Americans from giving charitably and being able to take care of their own families.

I know people living off of taxpayer money who are actually discouraged from striking out on their own and making their own way in life because of the safety net of free housing, food and disposable income they're given. Some people truly do need the assistance for a limited period of time, but when you have such a large percentage of the country living off of taxpayer money for years on end, something is wrong.


Californialaw profile image

Californialaw 3 years ago from San Diego, CA

Thanks for the article- I really enjoyed it. Nice to know that not everyone is in a war against the successful . And I agree that all of our news channels are a total joke. Its really a shame how actively they manipulate some facts and conceal others.

And teamrn I completely agree. I don't even think an income of 200,000 is anywhere near rich! In Southern California it would afford you a decent house in Orange County (not beachfront or anything) maybe a nice car or two and thats about it after saving for retirement, taxes, mortgage, insurance, property taxes, income taxes etc. Many of my friends grew up with families in that income level, and it was comfortable but not incredibly luxurious.

A medical emergency could easily tear that income apart.


Californialaw profile image

Californialaw 3 years ago from San Diego, CA

I think also one of the most amazing things is that people are convinced life is a zero sum game- that you have to take advantage of others to succeed financially. They forget all the families those entrepreneurs have employed and only see their success and they're maddened by it! They also think that they are undeserving of their wealth- but I don't know a single successful person who didn't risk it all to see their business succeed. There is no great wealth without great risk- so you can't balk at the people who had the balls to risk it all!

I think Ron Paul said it well in his goodbye speech, "The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles".

You just can't redistribute wealth, you only distribute poverty. They rejoice for the families they think they're helping and then forget about the millions of middle class Americans who are just barely getting by and no longer will. They really think people just arbitrarily pick a number for what healthcare etc costs- I saw my premiums rise more than 30%. Everything has a cost, and I have no doubt we will see millions suffer as Obama happily golfs away for the remainder of the year in Hawaii as he's simultaneously embraced as the messiah of the middle class (and ignoring the fact that all our taxes are going up). We are a truly divided country


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

lanablackmoor

THERE IS A SIMPLE SOLUTION,cut waste and follow the law.Senator Coburn reports 9 million ways to balance the budget CUT WASTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

Falling Over the Fiscal Cliff

the past 5 years, the Social Security Trust fund has paid $400 billion to dead federal employees.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873247...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/17/senator...

Obama or Reid telling the truth?

http://www.majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

FISCAL CLIFF, why? 2/13/10 Pay Go Law

The President lied?

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...

AIG Stock Sale Repays Bailout as U.S. Government Profits

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/aig-stock...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/health/policy/ga...

The incredibly shrinking bill for TARP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/...

Repayment Plans

http://kevinmccarthy.house.gov/index.php?option=co...

The latest surprise-surprise national debt limits

Full Text: Treasury Says U.S. to Hit Debt Limit Monday

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/interactive/...


bankscottage profile image

bankscottage 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

Great Hub. My taxes will go up significantly in 2013 almost no matter what Congress does. Since I don't burn $20 bill in my fireplace, regardless who does or doesn't agree with how I spend my money, the increased taxes will have to come from somewhere in my budget. My goal is to pay off my mortgage as fast as possible and save what I can. Then I can cut back working or maybe even retire, decreasing my income and my tax burden. My long term financial plan in retirement is "divorce". My wife's SS wouldn't be taxed and her income and assets could be so low she would qualify for "handouts". Who needs a Starbucks gift card when you can use your 'ex-wife's' EBT card?

To paraphrase a quote I recently saw 'government policies can not make everyone wealthy, but they can make everyone poor.' Maybe it is time to join the 'club'.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

The higher marginal tax rates on the people that earn more income is discriminatory and smacks of unequal protection, but at the same time only these people can make effective use of the Internal Revenue Code, IRC.

The Income Tax System also overrides the 5th Amendment of Self Incrimination. Tax Evasion is a federal felony, and the Income Tax System requires the reporting of ALL Income, Legally or Illegally acquired by the taxpayer.

The Income Tax System also invades the personal privacy of the taxpayer by requiring information on the income. This is simply a Tax and it shouldn't require that much information. A National Sales Tax would be better on all counts, if it REPLACED the Income Tax System.

I didn't say Flat Tax because that doesn't remove the problems of the Income Tax System.

It would be better if the Income Tax Systems was only one bracket, like that of capital gains. There is no valid reason to have more than one tax bracket.

The other problem with the Income Tax System is that it changes every year. This doesn't make good business sense. This causes businesses to make tax decisions in place of business decisions.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon Ewall, "It is difficult for die hard Liberals, Leftists or Democrats to understand the truth when they , without question, believe what they are being told by the President,Democrat leaders and/or the mainstream medias."

What is sad is that many leftists drink whatever is being sold (some on the right, center, too. Many do not use that God-given critical thinking ability and think for themselves; instead, they let Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell do it for them.

If CHris Matthews or the POTUS said, we'll solve our budge problems by eating a gallon of sand a day, there are many who would blindly EAT THAT GALLON of sand. Why? They don't ask why. Strikes me as Nazi Germany.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Glass-Jewelry- I'm not sure I agree that a flat tax increases the gap between the rich and poor since the rich will pay a far greater amount of tax, provided most loopholes are closed.

I believe that a government that redistributes wealth is one that widens the income gap as you call it. One reason for this is because income is what is being taxed and not wealth, those who are already wealthy aren't effected by high tax rates, as much as those who are trying to gain wealth! Another reason, is that by raising taxes on the rich, you also raise taxes on the businesses that create over 50% of the jobs in America. If you do this, you just kill jobs and this hurts the lower income groups the most, along with those who are trying to get ahead!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

wmhoward4- "Does anyone ever ask "Should the idle contribute more work and time?"

Terrific question but one few politicians would dare bring up! If everyone

had to contribute to tax increases there would be a lot less public demand for them. Its tempting to vote to increase someone else's tax.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Of course politicians would never bring it up, not PC and too many have as their primary objective, to win re-election. Shouldn't they be thinking more about doing what's best for the country?

There are those who can't work and who would if they could. I'm one. But, there are many who've gamed the system and no longer have the incentive to work, there is a culture of entitlement.

I have lots of thought on the subject, having seen it from both sides.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

lanablackmoor- Thank you for your insights! Your right in that taxes are a complex issue. From what I've studied thus far, the higher wage earners are shouldering the majority of the tax burden when compared to lower wage earners. Even with the loopholes available, higher wage earners are not only paying much higher taxes but at a higher rate. Even if you factor payroll taxes into the equation this is still the case for the vast majority of high wage earners, despite the fact that the social security is proportionately a far greater benefit to the poor than to higher wage earners.

I wholeheartedly agree that people tend to adapt a dependent lifestyle as government entitlements become more available. Its interesting that states that provide a more generous entitlements always have more people on the dole. But I do believe in a safety net for those truly in need.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

There needs to be a safety net for those who truly need it and THAT'S what SS was for. We should all be doing our best to save and plan ON OUR OWN, but when we can't for some reason of not our own doing, we have something to fall back on.

Unfortunately, there has become so much of a stigma to needing to fall back on reliance and I'd say, that most who do rely on Uncle Sam, wish they didn't have to. There are those cultures, though, for which it has become a way of life. I really believe that there needs to be means testing for SS. I mean, to how many retirees is Social Security just another vacation? Same with Congressmen and other wealthy retirees; they're still eligible for that extra $ per month.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Californialaw- Thank you for your gracious comments! Your insights are spot on, so many are taken in by the political manipulators in the press and the government. Envy has been choice tool of political demigods.

I would almost be impressed with the skillful deception of these politicians and their willing media accomplices if the consequences of their actions weren't so damaging. They've managed to successfully shift the blame from their failed policies to those who've by an large have contributed to the success of others. Not only have they harmed others but they've gained power in the process! What a cruel irony!


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 3 years ago from washington

Let me just say that I think the rich should apologize to everybody for trying to steal power from our nice, big, benevolent government, and creating wealth where wealth need not be created.

Further more I think it would be best if all of their assets were confiscated and given to me for proper distribution. I am willing to take the time out of my busy schedule to do this for a reasonably low 10% handling fee of all confiscated wealth. Just think, that's a much lower percentage than what the government already charges.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

bankscottage- I'm honored that a tax professional like yourself would consider this is a great hub! I know people that are making major financial decisions based on the anticipation of much higher taxes. One thing is for sure, its not good for the economy, people are holding off spending and investing! This isn't rocket science! The government seems to be rewarding people for earning less, if my wife and myself made a little less our son could qualify for a lot more college aid, maybe if I worked a little less I could get food stamps and HEAP!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

lanablackmoor

" Some people truly do need the assistance for a limited period of time,"

Unfortunately, that's usually not the case. Social Security Disability is granted to a LIMITED number of people for a limited period of time. The majority of individuals are granted Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits for chronic medical conditions. The thing about chronic medical conditions is that they tend NOT to get better and unfortunately get worse.

As they get worse, they cost more money to care for. Social Security has reviews every few years, to make sure the rolls are purged of people who cannot justify continued benefits, but they work bare to the bone and lack the resources to purge the rolls of all scofflaws.

Annie


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

ib radmasters- Thank you for your insights! You've brought up some interesting issues. I've also heard that progressive tax violates equal protection under the law. I haven't considered the violations of self incrimination and the right to privacy but I have no doubt your right on those counts also!

A national sales tax sounds like an interesting idea, Its worth looking into, I think it would discourage consumption and encourage savings and investment!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

teamrn- "Unfortunately, there has become so much of a stigma to needing to fall back on reliance and I'd say, that most who do rely on Uncle Sam, wish they didn't have to."

I agree with you, I worked as a case worker at social services and noticed how many of the employees looked down on those who needed the services. I felt their attitude was hardhearted and arrogant, I think it made them feel superior that they didn't need the help.

But as you mentioned there's a need for accountability, even good people will misuse a system without accountability. I believe this is why the Constitution gave the oversight of social programs to local governments. I think a big problem is that the money for these programs originate in Washington where politicians have power to buy influence and votes.

As for Social Security, the government has proven to be less trustworthy than individuals, so why not incentivize a program where the people can contribute to their own mutual fund. That way the government can't raid the system and use it for another tax and people can get a better return on their money. This would dramatically cut down the size and power of government and provide a built in accountability and incentive to guard their own investment!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

I agree with you whole-heartedly; but I really only have time to comment on your last paragraph; I think my 21 year old niece is much more capable of managing her own money than the Federal government-who shouldn't be in the business of running people's retirement in the first place.

If she's not capable, she has parents, friends and a whole network of people to help her; they don't answer to anyone, but the people in DC who's job it is to make her money have an axe to grind-or lobbyists and boards to answer to, and elections to win!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Onusonus- I think your on to something, sounds like a sweet business deal to me! Maybe you could help us avoid the fiscal cliff and make a fortune in the process, except the government doesn't like it when they have competition. I think the mob could probably give us a better deal than the government, at least they get steal openly!

Unfortunately, there's are large percentage of people who agree that the rich should not only apologize for earning a lot of money but should be forced to give it away!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

wba

The President is gloating in getting the fiscal cliff law passed.A victory for the Democrats, they got the tax increases the President promissed. Round one is over, the 113th Congress takes over today.The Speaker keeps his job and Harry Reid is still the Senate, majority leader.For a better understanding of what really occurred , check these links.

1/2/13

Fiscal cliff" bill had some hidden pork

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57561726/fis...

Wake up America, Obama broken promises.

The President lied? 2010

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...

12/19/12

President Obama’s Fiscal Cliff Plan “Balance” not true

http://www.speaker.gov/general/president-obama-s-f...

Last night, Congress just added $70 billion worth of new loopholes.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon- I like Jefferson's idea for passing new legislation, take a year from the time its proposed to the time its voted on and make the proposal available for all to see during the year! This would prevent last minuit wheeling and dealing as we're seeing now.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jefferson also wanted an up and down vote on the legislation as originally crafted, to prevent last minute changes!


Annie/teamrns 3 years ago

Folks, First I need to clarify,why inceasing taxes on the rich is the right thing to do. To what end, WHY is all the fuss in the rich paying more in taxes? Could someone please enlighten me?

The revenue gained by taxing people who make over $250K (or now the figure has changed) won't solve the debt crisis, it will only make us FEEL that we're all on a more level playing field. But I don't see how operating on a slightly more level field is going to solve our economic woes.

So, I feel better , because Warren Buffett pays his fair share as does Billl Gates. Thing is ,warm fuzzes never solved the problem of being cold. Putting an extra sweater on, did.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

What is a fair share.

The same percentage should be applied to everyone, in order to be fair.

end of discussion.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Annie/teamrns

The solution is simple, cut waste and follow the law. The US Constitution's fondations have been attacked.Congress needs to follow the laws of the land, debating, amending and voting on legislation is our elected representative's right. Laws that are regularly brokened without enforcement isn't worth the paper that they are written on.

Senator Coburn reports 9 million ways to balance the budget CUT WASTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

2/13/10 Pay Go Law

The President lied?

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...

GOVERNMENT WASTE,who should be held responsible and lose their job? It was reported that for the past 5 years, the Social Security Trust fund has paid $400 billion to dead federal employees.

http://hubpages.com/politics/PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA-...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/health/policy/ga...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/17/senator...

The people need to make their officials accountable. The problems can be solved now only by the people speaking out, loud and clear!


Annie/teamrns 3 years ago

I didn't say anything about the president lying , but to be frank, he's not known for being candid and upfront. I'm not particularly know why you addressed your post to me.

radmasters, "The same percentage should be applied to everyone, in order to be fair. End of discussion."

Do you really WANT EVERY THING EQUAL? No one said life was fair, no one promised that all would be fair and what a boring, thing if everyone was a carbon copy of everyone else. No one should starve mind you, but what is the reason for not having affluent areas and middle-class to lower middle class neighborhoods? No one should be have health challenges and all should have the same IQ; That's a utopia.

Now, your paying $3 for a loaf of bread at one store and me paying $1.50 for the same loaf at the same store-NO THAT'S NOT FAIR. We have laws against that.

But until we have a tax code that sayw ALL SHOULD BE TAXED THE SAMe, or all should pay the same, , we must live with the laws we have, fair or unfair.

HAVING a life that is so FAIR that all are EXACTLY equal is a life that our Constitution never addressed. It did address having a life where we could pursue our dreams and happiness. The part that needs to be emphasized in that is that we were NOT guaranteed the life of The Rockefellers and GotRocks, but we were guaranteed EQUAL RIGHTS TO PURSUE THAT LIFE,


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Annie/teamrns

''now why you addressed your post to me''you wrote ''

Could someone please enlighten me?

That's what I attempted to do. Maybe we are both on a different track, heading in different directions.

BE NICE and have a great day.


teamrns 3 years ago

Jon, I'm being nice. You said you made an attempt to enlighten me; an attempt to enlighten me would answer my basic question (which is also the premise of this hub, "Should the rich pay more in taxes?" )

Only I took the same thought one step further and said, please tell me WHY should the rich pay more in taxes?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrns

You are nice, don't take me wrong. The President says that everyone should pay their fair share.The poor ( 47%)pay no federal taxes, in many cases thru no fault of their own.Our country is not all about who is rich , middle class or poor.What is fair is that one can reap the fruits of their labor, whatever grade they may be.

The rich ( whoever they are ) pay taxes on their income,investments and other obligations.Taking away their certain write offs will increase their base income, they will pay more in taxes without any changes to the Bush tax rates ( not cuts as advertised)

A fraud on the American people is in progress. An example:http://giancarlolorenzo.hubpages.com/question/1913...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/09/21/r...


Annie/teamrns 3 years ago

So many people talk of 'fairness,' 'level playing field.' Well, who died and went to heaven and is now charged with determining what is FAIR?

8 people living off of $250,000 is quite a different scenario than 4 people living off the same. And when you take a tax rate, let's say my 15 %, you'll figure 15% of what I make is surely different than the 15% of what the unemployed make.

If the poor (the 47%) who pay no taxes, were still expected to file and pay .0033 of their AGI, it most definitely would not 'break their backs'. In the same token, it WOULD NOT SOLVE THE DEBT CRISIS. But, what it would do is n create an ethic that nothing comes for free.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Annie/teamrns

''fairness'' Is it fair to take taxpayer money and use it in a way that benefit the taxpayer?Pork barrel spending in Sandy relief bill passed by the House and the Senate and signed by President Obama via electronic signature in Hawaii.3/05/13

http://urbangrounds.com/2013/01/sandy-relief-bill-...

Senator Reid said to Rick Unger the pork was for Republican Governors along the coast. True or false?


Annie'teamrns 3 years ago

I don't know what you're driving at, though I suspect you'd like me to get on board with the many who whine about life's unfairness. The thing is WHO is to determine what is fair and what isn't.

I'm adressing one thing and one thing only. SHOULD THE RICH PAY MORE IN TAXES-and I've added on the caveat, if they should WHY?


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Annie/teamrns- I agree with, life's not fair and anyone who claims they can make it fair, is full of it! I've heard that if a government makes policy decisions based a fuzzy concepts such as fairness, this is a recipe for tyranny. The reason for this is that you could have a room full of people, none of which may agree on what is fair. So what are we to do, empower the government to make life fair, using the tax code or any other means? The problem here is that if the government is free to make policy based on what's fair, they would need nearly limitless power to do so.

The Constitution never mentions the word fairness in the entire document, equality is only mentioned once and that only refers to equality under the law. So there is an equality of opportunity but no guarantee of an equality of results.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

JON EWALL- I guess with all this talk about fairness, we need to qualify that we mean fairness. Fairness when we discuss it, means fairness in the bounds set by The Constitution! The Constitution only addresses the issue of fairness as equality under the law. And this is what I believe is being violated by a tax code that redistributes wealth! Its a violation of equal protection under the law as stated in an earlier post by(ib radmasters).

Now I believe The Constitution itself, has its roots in British common law, which itself is largely based on the scriptures. That being said, the higher law ie. "the law of God" says "thou shalt not steal", if we empower the government to take from one group to benefit another, what else can you call that but stealing?


Annie/teamrns 3 years ago

Yes, the Constitution has its roots in British common law and man's decency to man. Fairness was not promised, but equality under the law was promised US citizens.

Equal opportunity to succeed was promised, but SUCCESS was not. We provide physically and mentally handicapped students, handicapped accomodations in their schools and by doing this and providing specially trained teachers and specially equipped buses, etc, we're providing that access to success.

But, government was not intended to be the PROVIDER, the ENSURER of personal success.

When we speak of fairness, WHO is to determine what is FAIR, WHY and WHEN? Is that the reason for government? I submit that it's job is to GOVERN the country as is provided in the Constitution Nothing more. Nothing less.

Why some feel that it (government) should fly in on a white horse and save us from ourselves is anyone's guess. We do a pretty danged good job, WHEN LEFT TO OUR OWN DEVICES.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

The lessons of the Great Depression are missing here.

It was not FDR that first raised taxes on the wealthy to save the economy during the Great Depression, it was Herbert Hoover. He upped it to 68%.

By 1936 that tax rate was 79%. In 1945 it had reached 91%. It stay at 88% until Kennedy lowered it to 68%.

It was Ronald Reagan who through to two tax bills in 1981 and 1986 lowered the tax rate to 28% on the wealthy.

The issue here is not what wealthy individuals are entitled too. It's that the same issues that trashed the economy during the Great Depression is what trashed the economy in 2008.

When wealth and power goes unrestrained the average people are the ones that suffer the most.

A most recent survey shows that corporations are getting profits at an all time high while wages per capita since the Great Depression are at an all time low. Rich greedy people tanked the economy they should be the ones that help save it.

And just remember that between two Bush Presidencies and Ronald Reagan, these tax cuts came in the midst of the biggest spending binge in American History since the Great Depression and World War II.

FDR spent, but he also taxed to make up for it.

Stripping those portions of the New Deal that helped level the playing field for everybody equally, is also missing from this discussion.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

The lessons of the Great Depression are missing here.

It was not FDR that first raised taxes on the wealthy to save the economy during the Great Depression, it was Herbert Hoover. He upped it to 68%.

By 1936 that tax rate was 79%. In 1945 it had reached 91%. It stay at 88% until Kennedy lowered it to 68%.

It was Ronald Reagan who through to two tax bills in 1981 and 1986 lowered the tax rate to 28% on the wealthy.

The issue here is not what wealthy individuals are entitled too. It's that the same issues that trashed the economy during the Great Depression is what trashed the economy in 2008.

When wealth and power goes unrestrained the average people are the ones that suffer the most.

A most recent survey shows that corporations are getting profits at an all time high while wages per capita since the Great Depression are at an all time low. Rich greedy people tanked the economy they should be the ones that help save it.

And just remember that between two Bush Presidencies and Ronald Reagan, these tax cuts came in the midst of the biggest spending binge in American History since the Great Depression and World War II.

FDR spent, but he also taxed to make up for it.

Stripping those portions of the New Deal that helped level the playing field for everybody equally, is also missing from this discussion.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

What trashed the economy during the Great depression wasn’t the greed of the free market. What should have been a two or three year dip due to the business cycle became a depression which we only truly recovered from in 1946 when the stock reached the levels it had achieved in 1929. Although the war time production of WW2 put people back to work, wartime rationing was in effect and the economy didn’t grow until after the war. What extended the depression were the government policies of the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations.

Hoover was a progressive Republican, who in June 1930 instituted a tariff known as the Smoot- Hawley act. The tariff was meant to save American jobs but instead devastated American manufacturing. Hoover also pushed for higher wages for workers which further killed what little life the economy had at that point. The government enforced higher wages only kept companies from hiring and raised prices for customers who held off purchasing new products due to higher prices. FDR extended Hoovers failed government interventions, with the New Deal and its alphabet soup variety of new government agencies and programs. By 1940, the American economy had actually gotten worse than when FDR had begun his new programs. WW2 was a god send for FDR because it took the focus of the American people off the miserable economy FDR helped create.

Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t the New Deal or even the WW2 war production that propelled America out of the Great Depression; it was the fact that America was the only advanced industrial nation left standing after ww2 to supply goods to the world.

The high tax rates in effect during the Great Depression served to extend the depression because of its negative effects on hiring and investing. After WW2 the economy grew despite very high top tax rates because it was the sole advanced industrial provider of goods worldwide.

The lowering of taxes by Kennedy and later Reagan led to booming economies and more tax revenue not less. In fact since the 1950’s the percentage taxes for high wage earners has held nearly steady at about 20% regardless of tax rates. All raising top tax rates does is cause high wage earners to shift their money to avoid taxes or to just live on their savings until the rates drop.

The legacy of FDR is high taxes, unemployment soaring deficits, dependency and government tyranny, so far Obama has followed in his shoes, let’s hope he doesn’t continue to! The high tax and regulated markets of FDR and Obama has hurt the poor the most and will continue to!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

" let’s hope he doesn’t continue to!" President Obama is continuing in these tracks and has demonstrated he's not above tyrannical measures to achieve his goals, so I don't expect that anything will change in the next few years unless t he American people rise up and TELL HIM that he works for US and the law of the land is not HIM, it was that document that was signed into law in 1789. Until it is changed, which most have no desire for, he is sworn into the office to PRESERVE AND PROTECT IT.

This circumventing as in the recent recess appointments has got to stop; no one on the Hill is going to stop him, libs don't care if their Constitution is stepped on (as long as their guy, Barack, is doing the stomping), so that leaves too small a number of people who really do care. Libs care (or say they do and probably do), but they blindly follow their man who walks on water.

Until the walking on water complex dies, we'll stay in this rut and bleed jobs and not move forward.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

teamrn-I think that's a fair assessment of the situation. If the public doesn't care about the Constitution, we can't expect the government to care. The liberals have tried to make the Constitution in thier own image, I thier minds they probably believe they're following it. This is a dangerous deception and it displays poeples amazing capacity for rationalization.

The fact that the liberals in Congress don't want the Constitution read aloud gives you a peek into thier mindset. If they have any respect for the Constitution, maybe they believe thier the only ones smart enough to understand it.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

s supporte


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

If it is true that market crash of 1929, did not help tank the economy, then why did some of the biggest players such as Joe Kennedy get out while the getting was good?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

One must try to understand who these people are in their thinking and ideologies toward the Constitution.Many of those we elected remain silent as to what has happened in Congress.http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderProfile.a...

http://hubpages.com/politics/George-Soros-Meet-Oba...

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31606...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progres...

NOT THE US GOVERNMENT WE USED TO KNOW ?

http://commieblaster.com/progressives/index.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY

Aug 7, 2009

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfi

The story not told by the mainstream media and the press. Chicago style politics, step out of line, you will be destroyed. Mafia or terror tactics?


Zubair Ahmed profile image

Zubair Ahmed 3 years ago

I have a simple view, any one who is worth more than 1Million $ and continues to earn in excess of $1M each year should pay more towards helping the poor in society. I agree some rich people pay higher taxes that is usually for those who are employed and earn the money. But for the elites with huge stakes in large multinational companies they don't pay as much as they should.

If the rich stopped hoarding money then there will far fewer poor people in society.


Annie/teamrns 3 years ago

The thing to that is, who is to determine HOW MUCH of what they make should go to the poor? And should there be means testing for the poor to receive funds? I think we all know that there are those who receive help from the government, who use that money inappropriately.

Who will enforce the decision to enforce some of the wealthy to give some of their money to the poor and who will determine how much-a percentage, a flat dollar amount (like a flat tax)? There are a lot of things that might go into a decision like that, that could make it difficult to enforce, despite it sounding like a good idea. And then, ENTER POLITICS!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Annie/teamrns

The rich aren't the problem, we need to look to Washington for the answer. Congress has a fiduciary responsibilty to spend the taxpayers money in the best and most economical way.The President lied? 2010

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...

balance the budget CUT WASTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

Partial list of taxes and fees in health overhaul

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/partial-list-taxes-...

Obama’s Deficit Dodge

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-do...

Obama quote ‘’I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future,” the president said at a joint session of Congress. “I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.’

GOVERNMENT WASTE, the past 5 years, the Social Security Trust fund has paid $400 billion to dead federal employees.

CHARITY An American citizen named Willard Mitt Romney

http://giancarlolorenzo.hubpages.com/question/1913...

So many more, a sad story.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon, "The President lied?" What are you saying, talking about? I never said that anyone lied; I know I didn't say that, because I don't use that word: ever.

As far as looking to Washington for the answer, I'd not hold my breath, until the American people DEMAND that Washington police itself, get rid of the people who don't have THE COUNTRY'S best interest at heart.

The people need to do the kicking out of the scofflaws and that means the people have to KNOW the issues. Unfortunately the people don't care, at least too many don't care, to study the issues, so they're just as guilt by re-electing the same bums.

So, the people have no room to complain. Sure, there are the people here and there, the couples who talk politics all the time. But, often it stops short of the voting booth, because somewhere, somehow, it became unfashionable to vote, to become involved in your country, unfashionable to care.

So, unfortunately, until WE get off our kiesters we'll get what we get.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Arthur Bundy-

As a major player in business, no doubt Joe Kennedy knew that stocks at the time were overvalued so he chose to sell like any good businessman would. It’s also likely that Kennedy was privy to the political winds of the day and anticipated a significant move for the government to intervene in the economy because of the stock markets inevitable dip. Smart investors don’t want a large stake in an unpredictable market; he likely needed to pull his investments back until he got wind of the moves the government would make. Just 6 months after the October 1929 stock market crash, the stock market had recovered to its pre-crash level. How could this be if the crash precipitated the Great Depression?

The actions of the Federal Reserve contracted the money supply by 25% and in the name of saving jobs Congress enacted The Smoot-Hawley Act in June 1930 which devastated US manufacturing. Unemployment rose from 8% in 1930 to 25% in 1933. In 1932 Hoover and a Democratic Congress raised taxes from 25% to 63%. The New Deal massively regulated the economy and extended the Depression until after WW2.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon-

I hope these stories you cited are an exaggeration but I’m afraid there’s a lot of truth in them. The progressive movement was very misguided from the beginning. The movement’s ideology was a rejection of the Constitution right from the start. Today’s liberals draw their ideology from the progressives, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that they have little regard for ideas they’ve rejected. Many liberals have not seemed to realize that their government knows best philosophy is in direct opposition of the Founders idea of self- government, limited government and the rule of law.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

I couldn't agree with you more, wba; but find me a lib who will ADMIT that his philosophy is a 'government knows best.' The actions of liberal progressives are just that, though and actions speak much louder than words.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

I’m confused, when did I insinuate that you ever lied? One of the major problems is the media and press, their messages are distorted and in some cases biased reporting, in other words '' half truths and doctored tapes''. It is evident for those of us who see it happening every day.

First-Term Promises Made, Kept and Broken

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/20/us/p...

A biased report by ???

A different opinion , fact

Barak Obama Campaign Promises 2008

.http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...

The House passed their 2012 budget in Feb as require by House rules.

Where are the jobs? Check this site. http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

Wake up America,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/paygo_description/

President Obama’s Fiscal Cliff Plan “Balance” not true

http://www.speaker.gov/general/president-obama-s-f...

Your thoughts on and if the media is reporting the news in an honest way.


Steven Dison profile image

Steven Dison 3 years ago from O'Fallon, Illinois

Wow...so much to debunk. So little time. From a liberal, here's what we believe: There's no reason that a secretary should pay a higher percentage tax than her boss. I think everyone can agree to that. That's all the Buffett rule states. While the rich do have a higher percentage tax, they have many loopholes that allow them to pay nearly 0% tax. Obviously, that's just not right. I think everyone can agree to that.

Furthermore, I also believe that everyone should pay taxes. Obviously, the very poor should pay less. The flat tax sounds fair on paper, but when you compare the amount of discretionary income a rich person has versus someone who is below the poverty line, it is no longer fair to tax at the same percentage.

Honestly, it's a bit funny that so many people get bent out of shape about this. The tax rates back in the 50s and 60s for the rich hit a high point of around 90%. That seems a bit too high. But, during the Reagan years, the rich still paid over 40-50%. Now, people are fighting over whether to raise it a few percentage points to 39.6%. Luckily, the liberals prevailed, and the top rate was raised.

I'm actually surprised from a moral point of view. I'm not religious or anything, but I find it odd that so many people are trying to defend the rich against a minor tax increase, and at the same time, sounding the alarm that the poor aren't paying enough. Where is your heart? I understand the poor paying something, but I find it odd that you would choose taxing them more, than making the rich pay more. Just seems immoral to me.

Also, there's a myth out there that if the "job creators" were taxed more, they would simply have less motivation to make money. The percentage does not affect that. So, you're saying that a rich person would say, "Oh, what's the point anyway..." and just give up on making money. That's just ludicrous.

Just my thoughts on the issue.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Steven Dison

‘’if the "job creators" were taxed more, they would simply have less motivation to make money.’ The tax experts who decide the tax laws are in Washington. For Example

CITIES,TOWNS AND GOVERNMENT need money to construct or build a public project, where does the money come from besides the taxpayers ? Somehow the money comes by floating public bonds ( low interest ) which are federal tax exempt. WB,GATES AND let’s include ROMNEY who doesn’t receive A SALARY, hence no federal taxes, they live off of the investments which would initially pay taxes on any profits. The TAXES ON capitol gains are a second tax on funds that already have paid a tax. Fair or not fair. Somewhere along the way the government ( taxpayers ) got paid their share ‘. The government gets a share for no risk, no return on investment and any other cost. Sounds like a good deal for government taxpayers. When businesses go broke, the government don’t pitch in and come up with some money to save them?. http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/09/21/r...

http://giancarlolorenzo.hubpages.com/question/1913...

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/20...

There is a difference between a liberal and a conservative in ideology and actions. They both want to help the poor. The liberal feels good helping the poor, hardly with his own money, prefers using someone else’s money ( taxpayer). The conservative gives gladly to help the poor with his own money. Rather than give it to the government, he willing gives to the poor. For that generosity the government allows him to change his tax base hence lowering taxes.

The problems today is that the public are being fed a constant distortion of the truth by the media, press and the politicians in Washington. Class warfare is not what our country is all about. The House passed their 2012 budget in Feb as require by House rules.

Where are the jobs? Check this site. http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Hi Steven and welcome to the place where we try to solve the world's problems; it's really quite fun! I'm going to hit on what I see as the salient points you make in each paragraph.

In most cases, a secretary shouldn't be paying a higher tax rate than her boss; but there are circumstances in which the boss has more legal exemptions (for example, the support of a disabled child). But I'm agreed that in most cases, the boss's rate should be higher than his secretary.

My concern is that you speak of THE BUFFET RULE as hard and fast, like a law. It was being (and likely still is) considered, but until the tax code is revised, it isn't in place. Then you speak about the rich having loopholes which allow them to pay 0%; is there a reason we're not spending time on revising the tax code which allows tax scofflaws, like Jeffrey Immelt, to get away with not paying the government it's due and instead spending time on a healthcare bill that is billions over budget?

This one doesn't add up:''Now, people are fighting over whether to raise it a few percentage points to 39.6%": a raise from 36 to 39% is a 10% increase. It may only be a few percentage points, but get out your calculator and add 10% to 36. You got it, 39.6%. That represents a tax increase on let's say $300,000 income of nearly $10,000 and those who make $300,000, while wealthy to me; in reality, don't usually have an extra $10,000 to throw to the government. They're likely the small businessmen/women who need to make the decision to employ someone with that $10000, get new equipment, provide full-time jobs with that $10,000.

Let's say that the government does manage to wrangle that extra $10,000 from someone. Does the government honor it? What about the GSA and other government agencies which have been exposed as using taxpayer money for less than noble purposes? There are two sides (at least) to each story, and lots of people look at the government's track record for running efficient and streamlined programs (???) AND RUN THE OTHER WAY.

"I find it odd that so many people are trying to defend the rich against a minor tax increase, and at the same time, sounding the alarm that the poor aren't paying enough. Where is your heart?" I know, I'm a heartless witch and so is every conservative who ever occupied this planet. It really sounds like you really believe that you're a defender of the poor and also think that conservatives want the poor to suffer, suffer, suffer! Get real! Conservative want to protect the poor by making sure that there are safety nets in the future, rather than take the liberal approach of tax the job creators then spend that money on social programs,, spend, spend, spend and eventually, there will be no money to give to those poor, no more safety nets.

Then there's this one, "I find it odd that you would choose taxing them more, than making the rich pay more" How so did conservatives want to tax the poor more? That leads me to my next point which I believe is also a point of yours. "Job Creators" You really believe in taxing the hell out of the job creators, don't you? I don't know about you, but people tend not to get jobs from the poor. The people who take risks are the job creators and for taking the risks that they take, they should not be penalized. The extra 10% may not affect the Mitt Romey's of this world (who has done a lot of his work for no salary), but it does affect the $300,000 small business man's desire to pour more sweat and blood and equity into a venture-that employees more people than anyone in America. The small businessman.

When you do that, the job creator, my husband//s boss, your boss, everyone's boss has to start making the choices of fewer workers, more part-time workers, fewer benefits to those; eventually laying off those workers, many of whom ARE the poor.

Many of the poor live paycheck to paycheck anyway and their bosses (who may not be drawing a salary, either, are going to have to pay penalties for not being able FINANCIALLY to provide health care coverage for their employees.

So, when the employees get sick, what do they do? It's the ER, and who pays, the hospital eats the cost and then eventually they lay off workers. It's a cycle and a long-term view needs to be had. You see, with every legislative decision, we should be saying to ourselves (our legislators), "Is this going to help create jobs?"

Annie


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Zubair Ahmed-

I’m not sure your view is that simple, does the fact that someone has been successful give you the right to pick their pockets? What made you draw the line at 1 million dollars and how do you know how much their helping the poor now? Maybe we should take your line of reasoning a step further, wouldn’t it be fair if the minimum wage were say 50 or even 100$/hr? Wouldn’t it be fair for white people to pay a tax to compensate other races for past discrimination, shouldn’t Jews, blacks, women or others be compensated for these wrongs? How about people who were born with disabilities or born just plain ugly, wouldn’t it be fair if healthy and attractive people to compensate them for their past pain and suffering?

Seriously though, are we to make policy decisions based on fairness? As I mentioned in a previous post, “that if a government makes policy decisions based a fuzzy concepts such as fairness, this is a recipe for tyranny. The reason for this is that you could have a room full of people, none of which may agree on what is fair. So what are we to do, empower the government to make life fair, using the tax code or any other means? The problem here is that if the government is free to make policy based on what's fair, they would need nearly limitless power to do so.

The Constitution never mentions the word fairness in the entire document, equality is only mentioned once and that only refers to equality under the law. So there is an equality of opportunity but no guarantee of an equality of results.”


Patriot Quest profile image

Patriot Quest 3 years ago from America

Peter says let's all pay our fair share? Yet refuses to clarify what "fair share is"? .........Peter don't you live overseas?.........so how are you paying your fair share? Sending in checks to the IRS???


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Patriot. Yes, 'fair' is a strange thing. First, the Constitution doesn't refer to fairness; second WHO is to determine WHAT is 'fair' and HOW MUCH, also.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

Paying the fair share is paying the same percentage on your income, and not different rates for different people.

That is not fair and it targets certain people, which is discrimination.


Steven Dison profile image

Steven Dison 3 years ago from O'Fallon, Illinois

The reason we have a graduated tax system is simple. Every study we have done on the effects of a flat tax, show that it disproportionately benefits the rich. On paper, a flat tax does sound fair. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income. Fantastic. Upon further inspection, here's why it's not fair. The percentage of income that is discretionary varies wildly between the middle class and the rich. So, 20% of a middle class person's income is much larger to them than 20% of a rich person's income. That's the key. Discretionary income.

The top tax rate used to be nearly 90% during the 1940s, so it's not unreasonable to ask them to pay 39.6%. Not to mention, that is hardly the rate they end up paying after deductions and loopholes.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

teamrn-“but find me a lib who will ADMIT that his philosophy is a 'government knows best.'”

Maybe they wouldn’t admit this but they definitely don’t seem to believe that the average person can be trusted to make their own decisions with their own money or their own self-protection. Of course they seem to believe they have the wisdom to make decisions for all of us. Maybe they feel their more enlightened and therefore anointed to tell us what to do for our own good!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

How can libs actually think that their ability to do what's best for THEM is somehow inferior to the government, to a stranger? That is scary and sad, but apparently, there's delusion in them that thoughts.

How actually do they believe that some entity who has SUCH A POOR TRACK RECORD (government) has a better on what's RIGHT for them? If anyone proclaimed to know what was best food me, they'd have to do a pretty convincing job on me.

For some reason, they feel that Congress and the legislature can do a better job of investing their money better than the can: How can libs actually think that their ability to do what's best for THEM is somehow inferior to the government, to a stranger? That is scary and sad, but apparently, there's delusion in them that thoughts.!

How actually do they believe that some entity who has SUCH A POOR TRACK RECORD (government) has a better on what's RIGHT for them? If anyone proclaimed to know what was best food me, they'd have to do a pretty convincing job on me.

For some reason, they feel that Congress and the legislation can do a better job of investing their money better than they can, look over family budget issues better than they can and sit down with them personally and guide their children's financial future until they graduated college and get a job-if they should be so lucky to find one..

Talk about father knows best! But, why then, do they feel that by empowering the government with the power to make decisions for themca, look over family budget issues better than they can and sit down with them personally and guide their children's financial future until they graduated college and get a job-if they should be so lucky to find one..

Frankly, i don't understand, i really don't understand. I'm more than capable than anyone to determine what is best for me; I'm sure there are areas where I'm trumped, so I'LL gather advisors and execute a plan-the government doesn't need to be involved, thank you!

We all know of exceptions and they're plainly written in the Constitutions. All powers not specifically granted to the central government shall be given to the state or local or regional (or some other language), but that's the gist. Annie


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

ib radmasters- “Paying the fair share is paying the same percentage on your income, and not different rates for different people. That is not fair and it targets certain people, which is discrimination.”

I agree, I can’t see that the Constitution allows the government to choose to tax one group at a higher rate than another group. If this were the case our government would resemble a sultan’s court that grants largess at the whim of the Sultan instead of a republic under the rule of law!


Steven Dison profile image

Steven Dison 3 years ago from O'Fallon, Illinois

I'm a lib and I'll admit that I believe government knows best. You know why? Because it's government by the people, for the people, of the people. Yet, we seem to forget that. We elect these people. So, yes, I believe government CAN be a force for good. FDR knew this and created federal work programs, social security, and Medicare.Eisenhower created the national highway system. We passed the civil rights act. We gave women the right to vote and under Clinton, we reformed welfare. Government can do great things, such as ending slavery, so yes, I fundamentally believe it *can* be a force for good. Because we are governed by us. There's no need to fear ourselves. We forget that we vote for them. No matter how much money they throw at us, we still have the power of the vote. So, I've never quite understood this constant fear of the government or the belief that it is evil because Americans would have to be evil for that to be true. I suppose I'm just not as cynical.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Steve, I think we're all agreed for the most part that government CAN be a force for good and DOES have a place in our lives. Say in the Emancipation Proclamation and the programs that you cite by FDR, Eisenhower are good examples.

But, I don't believe that government IN ANY WAY trumps personal responsibility to look out for one's health, to invest one's money, to tell one how to run a business and a plethora of things.

Yes, we elect the people in DC to make the decisions that the Constitution endows them with rights to make. The Constitution didn't MENTION that "Congress shall make a single payer health insurance company...'" It didn't used the word 'health' in the document-or even the founding documents at all.

Why are we not crucifying the current POTUS for making the recess appointments that he made that were deemed by a DC circuit court to be unConstitutional? Have we abdicated all of our critical thinking abilities and decided that the government can do whatever it wants and WHENEVER?

Steve, do you really believe that if you have $3000 to invest, that our government could better invest that money than you do? Wouldn't you rather YOU be the investor of YOUR money? You know that you'll study market trends and all, or even consult with a person who does this for a living. God only knows what the government is doing with your $3000. Do you really think that they're consulting with the market gurus? So, deep in debt they are, I'd doubt that one!

There are individuals who can't read or aren't inclined to research themselves, and the government can be a sefety net for their investing. But, in your heart of hearts, do you seriously believe that someone else SHOULD make a decision about your retirement, without consulting YOU? It's a sad commentary on how you view your abilities, if you feel that Uncle Sam is better equipped to handle this-just because you elected him. You didn't send him to DC to manage your finances, but to follow the Constitution-which doesn't give him any rights to manage your money and plan your retirement.

I'm shaking in disbelief that there is a soul out there who seriously believes that GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST, that "Big Brother is best equipped to do YOUR thinking.'' in EVERYTHING that comes up, just because YOU elect him. Pardon me for saying that that seems like a lame and lazy way to think and a cop-out. That way you never have YOU to blame, bcause you never do anything, but you have your government to blame-so it's your whipping boy

That way, if something goes wrong, you have DC to blame and not EVER you. What a cushy way to live, but a delusional way. May sound cruel, and I don't mean it to be, but incredulity has take over my mind!


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

Here is the thing many people that play the stock market pay on capital gains tax which is flat and not based on the amount and they don't have to pay FICA.

So why not give that same flat tax to the wage earners.

That is fair because everyone is paying the same rate.


Steven Dison profile image

Steven Dison 3 years ago from O'Fallon, Illinois

I had to break down your long-winded repudiation a bit, so excuse the re-quoting.

“Steve, I think we're all agreed for the most part that government CAN be a force for good and DOES have a place in our lives. Say in the Emancipation Proclamation and the programs that you cite by FDR, Eisenhower are good examples.”

First off, I'm glad we can agree on something! I'm glad you caught my asterisks over “can.”

“But, I don't believe that government IN ANY WAY trumps personal responsibility to look out for one's health, to invest one's money, to tell one how to run a business and a plethora of things.”

I never said Government trumps personal responsibility. So, you seem to be assuming quite a bit. A respectable dialogue's worst enemy. But, I do feel that it's government's role to pass restrictions on emissions, cars, smoking, guns etc. Common sense safety measures that can save lives. I think it can be pushed too far, like when Michael Bloomberg passed the law banning a certain size soft drinks in New York. That seems a bit excessive.

“Yes, we elect the people in DC to make the decisions that the Constitution endows them with rights to make. The Constitution didn't MENTION that "Congress shall make a single payer health insurance company...'" It didn't used the word 'health' in the document-or even the founding documents at all.”

I assume you're talking about Medicare/Medicaid. I think you misunderstand the constitution. Just because it doesn't say something, doesn't mean congress can't do it. That's up to the supreme court to decide. So, if you truly believe that we shouldn't have social programs like social security and the like, you might as well move to another country. That battle is over. They are here to stay.

“Why are we not crucifying the current POTUS for making the recess appointments that he made that were deemed by a DC circuit court to be unConstitutional? Have we abdicated all of our critical thinking abilities and decided that the government can do whatever it wants and WHENEVER?”

Because the ruling was a bit odd. Many, many Presidents have made recess appointments. So, it's odd that they would just now say, “Oh no, that's unconstitutional!” That's why.

“Steve, do you really believe that if you have $3000 to invest, that our government could better invest that money than you do? Wouldn't you rather YOU be the investor of YOUR money? You know that you'll study market trends and all, or even consult with a person who does this for a living. God only knows what the government is doing with your $3000. Do you really think that they're consulting with the market gurus? So, deep in debt they are, I'd doubt that one!”

I never said I'd prefer the government to invest my money. Honestly, I'm not that good at investing, so maybe they would do better. Are we talking about a government mutual fund, or something...? But seriously, you have a very cynical view of government. Plus, in this fictional scenario you've created, how would I possibly know if they're “consulting with the market gurus”? Just an odd example.

People invest their own money everyday, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never said the government should invest everyone's money. You really take things too literally. I was simply saying that I trust government. Take that for what you will.

“There are individuals who can't read or aren't inclined to research themselves, and the government can be a sefety net for their investing. But, in your heart of hearts, do you seriously believe that someone else SHOULD make a decision about your retirement, without consulting YOU? It's a sad commentary on how you view your abilities, if you feel that Uncle Sam is better equipped to handle this-just because you elected him. You didn't send him to DC to manage your finances, but to follow the Constitution-which doesn't give him any rights to manage your money and plan your retirement.”

Once again, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I manage my own retirement and money. I suppose you could be talking about the social security program, which is basically a forced retirement program. It has been statistically proven that it has greatly reduced the number of destitute seniors. So, they are taking your money via taxes and then giving it back to you later. The solvency of said program is a different story. In short, to fix it is easy. Simply raise the limit to which the government can tax for social security benefits. I think it's currently anything above $110,000 (don't quote me on that, but it's around there) we can't tax. If they raised it to $250,000, that would make social security solvent for at least 50+ years by all estimations.

“I'm shaking in disbelief that there is a soul out there who seriously believes that GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST, that "Big Brother is best equipped to do YOUR thinking.'' in EVERYTHING that comes up, just because YOU elect him. Pardon me for saying that that seems like a lame and lazy way to think and a cop-out. That way you never have YOU to blame, bcause you never do anything, but you have your government to blame-so it's your whipping boy.”

Keep shaking then. I do trust government. They don't always get it right, but then we elect someone else. You really make a logical jump based on my statement. I guess you forgot to use simple logic. You assume because I trust government that I believe it should control everything, even my thinking. That's just absurd and you know it. Please take a logic class and come back. That might sound harsh, but it's true.

“That way, if something goes wrong, you have DC to blame and not EVER you. What a cushy way to live, but a delusional way. May sound cruel, and I don't mean it to be, but incredulity has take over my mind!”

I never said that. You entirely missed the point. If DC does something wrong, there are two groups to blame. DC, obviously. But, you also blame the people who voted them in. So, yes, I would be to blame in certain cases. Once again, logic class. Please. For the betterment of the world and the people around you, please.

Also, don't expect a response to anymore of your posts from me. If there's anything I've learned, discussing politics with you would be a quite exhausting because you lack even the most basic logical thinking skills. Seriously.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

hubbers

''I trust government'' GOVERNMENT WASTE, the past 5 years, the Social Security Trust fund has paid $400 billion to dead federal employees.Renewable energy money still going abroad, despite criticism from Congress

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investig...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/09/study-c...

NOT THE US GOVERNMENT WE USED TO KNOW ?

http://commieblaster.com/progressives/index.html

The federal government will end fi9/28/12

Obama’s Deficit Dodge

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-do...

Be the judge


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

"Just because it doesn't say something, doesn't mean congress can't do it. "

Steve, I believe the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states that all powers not granted to the federal government shall be given to the state, local and regional government, but let me go look that up. In fact, I believe that's in Article 1, Section -NOPE, it is the 10th amendment that states this. So, not specifically given to the Federal government-that power goes to the state in reserved powers.

"I never said I'd prefer the government to invest my money. " But, inherent in the statement," I'll admit that I believe government knows best." is GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR STEVE. There is no one who knows what is best for Steve-than STEVE, short of neurosurgery and few things, but basically Steve knows what is best for Steve. Not Barack Obama, not Congress-even though we elect them, when was the last time they did our bidding?

"I never said Government trumps personal responsibility..." My emphasis was not as much on the 'personal responsibility' part; as it was the taking

I just saw this. "Also, don't expect a response to anymore of your posts from me. If there's anything I've learned, discussing politics with you would be a quite exhausting because you lack even the most basic logical thinking skills. Seriously."

That's strange, because I've been known by some on on HP to be a voice of logic and reason, one who does not point fingers, who attempts to solve problems and source quotes with good critical thinking abilities. The fact that my statements resulted in such a response, makes me only feel like I hit a nerve, struck a chord; and rather than discuss what was hit like 2 adults, I smell an ostrich

""I manage my own retirement and money." So you think. What about the money that goes to your FICA taxes. Does that get returned to you? Or does Uncle Sam have a special unit who's job it is is to make sure all of your $3oo0 (between trips to Vegas (because they were in vesting@ntitled to a bonus.'


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

time for another hub


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

IB, I was half asleep when I wrote my last response, so I laugh when I see the train of thought wander!! As far as trying another hub, there'll be another one coming along soon, but there are different angles for approaching this one. There aer also more than you and me in the discussion.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Steven Dison – You base a lot of your policy preference on the basis of fairness? But fairness is one of the vaguest of political terms. It’s said that using “fairness” as a basis for policy is a recipe for tyranny. Why, because if the government has the right to make policy based on what they believe is fair, they would need an almost unlimited amount of power to do so.

Suppose for example that you published an article with a statement that “Rush Limbaugh is a fraud and misleads millions”. Some may consider that statement to be unfair speech some may not. So what do we do? A tribunal would have to be formed to decide the whether your statement is either fair or unfair. It goes without saying that the political preferences of the tribunal would likely have much to do with the outcome. Once this tribunal is set up what if we don’t like their decisions? Suppose they consider your statement to be hate speech, what would a fair punishment be?

Regarding the comparisons in tax rates between now and the 1950’s:

1) We were the only advanced industrial nation left standing after ww2 to supply goods to a world in desperate need of them. Now we must compete with many capable competitors

2) We were a creditor nation. Nations all over the world owed us money, so we had a strong bargaining position in our trade relations. Now were about 17 trillion dollars in debt with the current administration adding more debt at unprecedented levels.

3) Regardless of tax rates, since the 1950’s the percentages of taxes paid by those in the upper tax brackets have remained roughly the same. Back in the 1950’s there were more loopholes and those in the high tax brackets merely shifted their assets to tax free bonds or other instruments. Today we can’t afford to have our much needed investment dollars going to pay off government debt in the form of tax free bonds.

4) The high tax rates of the 1950’s were largely symbolic; you could count on one hand the people who actually paid those rates. The revenue collected by the government as a percentage of GDP was actually lower than when the rates were cut by Kennedy and later Reagan.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

teamrn- “Government knows best” is the essence of tyranny! Tyrants from the beginning of time have sought to maintain power over others based on their supposed superiority over the ones they rule. Think of the divine right of kings, the pharaoh or Caesar as God to the people and “The Führer” meaning the leader or guide of the people. What set America apart was the revolutionary notion that we could have self-rule and not be ruled by our betters. This is the essence of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The government was intended to be a servant not a benevolent master.

Our government was set up with checks and balances, and divided vertically into local, state and federal governments and the federal government was divided horizontally into executive, legislative and judicial branches. The Constitution enumerated the specific roles of each level of government and set it up so that each level of government would have competing interests. Why go through all this trouble to limit the power of government if the government is supposed to run our lives? The real truth is that the liberals vision for America is in direct conflict with the founders vision, that’s why they can’t stand having The Constitution read in public.

Freedom requires a high level of responsibility and risk; I think that’s why so many would rather sit back and let the government take care of them like a parent would take care of a child. The problem is of course the government is going to watch out for themselves when it comes down to it and its coming down to it soon!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Wba, when it does come down to it, I want to be in the personal responsibility bunker with you and our Constitution. That document was written and it doesn't need progressive designs placed on the masterpiece that it is.

For the few unforeseen circumstances, we have an amendment process which has been needed precious few times (28?) in more than 224 years. There are other countries that go through Constitutions like 'crap through a goose'.

No one can convince me that our founders wanted a large centralized government. That's what they were running from in England and wanted no more of. Yet, there are actually people who feel that this largesse is the 'way to go.' LEARN A LITTLE HISTORY AND THEN COME EXPLAIN THE SAME THING!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Increasing the upper tax bracket from 36% to 39.6% is MUCH more than a measly 3 percentage points. That's a 10% increase.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Team- If my memory serves me, when Obama ran in 2008 he assured voters that it would be foolish to raise taxes in a recession. Even more important than the proposed 10% tax hike is the knowledge that the President doesn't mean what he says and therefore can't be trusted! Investor and business uncertainty has stagnated the economy thus far and now we face steep tax increases from Obamacare that are due to hit in 2013. This sends the wrong message again!


Annie 3 years ago

Wba, "when Obama ran in 2008 he assured voters that it would be foolish to raise taxes in a recession. "

The thing that concerns me is is there is a core of his staunch believers who believe JUST THAT? Again, why, how? In the words of Bill O'Reilly,

I'm a simple man, explain to me in simple terms..."

I don't mean you, because you DON'T believe in tax increase during a recession. I'm inviting the people WHO DO BELIEVE THAT RAISING TAXES DURING A RECESSION IS A GOOD THING to chime in here now and tell me HOW raising taxes in a recession helps.

HOW, In the name of all that is man or machine made, will that help?


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Annie- I believe their thinking goes something like this: Low tax rates have allowed the rich to possess undue influence on the political and economic systems and widened the wealth gap, causing the economy to be destabilized. Raising taxes brings stability to return by shifting wealth back to the general population, thereby creating more demand for consumer goods. According to Keynesian theory, this helps the economy because it stimulates demand. Maybe I’ve got it wrong, I don’t know. I'll admit that this theory seems to defy common sense.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Annie

The right side believes that raising taxes is not necessary because spending is the problem to reducing the deficits. Any NEW spending requires an offset by cutting spending in the government , in other words deficit neutral ( the 2010 pay go law ).? 2/13/10 Pay Go Law The President lied?

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...

Why can't the President and the Democrats follow the law? http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/paygo_description/

A simple solution, cut Gov. waste and follow the law. Senator Coburn reports 9 million ways to balance the budget CUT WASTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

In 2011, the House passed a bill to stop SEQUESTRATION, The Senate did not vote on the bill, the

President threatened to veto the bill if passed. Wonder why?

July,25,2011

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S National Debt Crisis ‘’Cut, Cap and Balance ‘

http://hubpages.com/politics/PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA-...

12/01/11 just a sample of following pay go law

Senate Democrats Vote No To Extend The Payroll Tax Deduction

http://hubpages.com/hubtool/edit/2851288

http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...

Somehow , we the people elected the President to a second term with a record of FAILURE to make good on the promises of 2008 to the American people.

Obama’s Deficit Dodge

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-do...

There are many people that did not see the truth because the media didn’t report the lies and distortions of the past and present.

The House passed their 2012 budget in Feb as require by House rules.

Where are the jobs? Check this site. http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

THE SHARED AGENDAS OF GEORGE SOROS and BARACK OBAMA

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31606...

The President’s plan is obvious to those in the know.

.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon, the right doesn't ALWAYS believe that raising taxes is wrong; there are times when that is a necessary evil. But they don't see the easy way out, the easy convenience, the easy solution to any problem by raising taxes like the left does. In other words, they don't believe in the "POOF- clap your hands-do the hokey pokey- raise massive taxes and the debt will go away-theory!" Does raising taxes on me, who earns together with her husband about $36K really make financial sense" And does the left really feel that by taxing George Soros more that his money will make me rich?

Quite frankly, I'd like to see George Soros WANT to give away money and keep money that he worked hard to get. George Soros can absorb the 10% increase, but the person who makes $250K can't, especially if he/she has a business, special needs children and any number of mitigating circumstances. Increasing taxes on the wealthy takes away all the WANT, ABILITY to tithe and give to charities. I'll leave Joe Biden out of it. Sooner or later the wealty will tire of paying everyone else's bills but their own and they'll move to greener pastures and set up their bank accounts off-shore like a good number of Congressional leaders.

Then where will the jobs be? Not here! And the wealthy won't be employing Americans. You can't expect someone to take a licking over and over again and come back for more like the timex battery. Doesn't work that way in real life.

They certainly don't believe that raising taxes when nobody has any money makes good economic sense, nor do they believe that we can somehow spend our way to prosperity, skip the pain that goes with it, and spend our way to that prosperity without kicking the can down the road to our children, grandchildren and their great grandchildren.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

Let's all hope for the best in the future for ourselves and our children.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Let's hope, but things don't look bright from where I sit as long as there's no leadership in DC.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

'' The Man '' still don't get it. The ELECTION is over and He won, the problems are in Washington. Two stops a week ago, three stops this week. Someone ,Congress needs to ground AF 1,HOPEFULLY SAVING MILLIONS.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

We ought to ground AF 1; but also the American people should exert the influence of THEIR vote. But, they're too lazy to learn the issues and be wise consumers/voters. Until they do, we're stuck with what we've got, so we deserve what we get.

Even if the results of their learning about the issues is different than mine, we've accomplished something. And that his wrestling power from the hands of DC and shown DC that the American people are capable, competent; AND DON'T DO THIS EVER AGAIN.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn 45

Obama once said '' I know your hurt '' '' the buck stops here'' '' if Congress don't act, I will '' ''we are a nation of the rule of law ''

REALLY!

SEQUESTRATION IS THE OBAMA PLAN. The Republicans have a simple solution:

1.CUT WASTE in gov. FIRST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs

2.FISCAL CLIFF, why? 2/13/10 Pay Go Law

The President lied? Follow the law

http://chicagoconsultant.com/page2.php?category=2&...

3.The House passed their 2012 budget in Feb as require by House rules.

Where are the jobs? Check this site. http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

Reid wouldn’t allow a vote. Meaning the President don’t need to do anything.

To be continued?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

''Should the Rich pay more in Taxes?'' NO they shouldn't pay more than their FAIR SHARE.I asked a family member (a government employee ), is it better to give the government more of our money, or would you prefer to have more of your money.The first comment was that money paid to the government is for the police, fireman, teachers and .....that's true for cities towns and ...... I EXPLAINED THAT IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ROLE TO PAY FOR THOSE SERVICES BUT FOR LOCAL CITIZENS TO PAY.In every speech President Obama will mention the above and that Congress needs to act on his demands for money to support the public sector unions. Wake up America, we need jobs so that we the people will pay for our services.Obama’s Deficit Dodge

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-do...


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon, who would determine what is FAIR? Did you see/hear Dr. Benamin Carson's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast last week?


Patriot Quest profile image

Patriot Quest 3 years ago from America

Jon, God himself said we should pay 10%!! he didnt change it up for each social status!

Jon what is the fair share? You lefties beat this into us each day, yet you ignore the IRS when they say the rich pay 90% of all the bills in this country?.........Do you believe your own made up rhetoric over actual numbers that any idiot can look up on the net? What about the 50 % of Americans driving public roadways and using schools? Shouldn't they pay SOMETHING! .........keep talking FAIR my friend!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

hubbers

A comparison

An American citizen named Willard Mitt Romney

http://giancarlolorenzo.hubpages.com/question/1913...

Romneys Paid Average Tax Rate of 20.2% in 20-Year Period

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/09/21/r...

Social Security Revenues Have Been Used to Mask Deficits

Republicans have lied about this. Democrats have lied about this. Presidents have lied .

http://hubpages.com/politics/What-Social-Security-...

Is it fair?


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon, LIFE IS NOT FAIR. Was it fair that you warmed the bench on HS football when you were better than the other guys? Heck no, life is full of inequities and wrongs, that if we tried to right EVERY wrong, we'd spend a lifetime RIGHTING WRONGS and never accomplishing a dang thing. The world is ours to conquer, not to be a victim of what we deem to be 'unfairness.' There is more to living that that.

Have you heard Dr. Carson's speech? On YouTube: http://youtu.be/PFb6NU1giRA

If you don't have the full 28 mins (which is a GREAT listen) for all Americans, libs or conservative, green or independent or whatever stroke), begin watching about the 18th minute and he speaks to fairness.

When we speak of a fair tax system, "like why shouldn't the rich pay more?" we have to consider that someone who makes $250,000 is considered rich. Yet that someone may be a company owner and employ a few people. Increase his taxes and tbose people get pink slips and the road to insolvency is pretty short.

Also, let's say there's a businessman who makes $600,000. Of course we're going to consider him rich. But little do we know of the extenuating circumstances beyond his control, like the autistic son, the wife with breast cancer who is uninsurable, and the 4 children to raise on his own and to put through college, He has no control over these circumstances and can't be blamed.

But, tax him into oblivion and anyone he employs needs to be concerned about his/her job and there definitely isn't room to expand his business, hiring more people and MAYBE CREAT A JOB OR TWO. I have yet to see how raising taxes on any of these people CREATES JOBS!


Patriot Quest profile image

Patriot Quest 3 years ago from America

Jon, you are using rhetoric to make a point and not telling the whole truth, therefore a lie! Romney does pay less tax than working Americans NOW! it is called capital gains tax, its the same tax a person with only 100 dollars in savings has to pay on interest accrued! Meaning like all Americans Romney paid his fair share in taxes and hundreds of thousands more than most, He then took what the government ALLOWED him to retain and invested it! In all FAIRNESS non one should have to pay capital gains tax! Its double dipping by the feds! See that money was already TAXED! Now they government says if you take what we left you in the first place and invest it then we will punish you for it, and tax you again!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Patriot Quest- Good point about double taxation and how about the fact that an investor faces substantial risk in the marketplace while providing an important benefit to the economy!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Team- Love Dr Carson's speech! What he's saying should be common sense, I guess you can't take for granted that common sense is common because it seems the majority of Americans just voted to oppose it! Terrific points, the tax systems makes lawbreakers out of all of us, How the government chooses favorites by helping some and not helping others, and the idea that that we should punish someone's success because their not hurt as bad as someone who makes less.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Weren't the points s, great,, wba. This should be mandatory for the curricula of all schools. Non-partisan, but plain truths, I can't seem to watch it enough.


bofproobre 3 years ago

Please let me know if you're looking for a author for your site. You have some really great articles and I feel I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I'd love to write some material for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please shoot me an email if interested. Kudos! make your computer run like brand new


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

bofproobre-I'm flattered that you think I have some great articles! I'd be glad to e-mail you but I need your email and I'd like to see some samples of what you write. I'm always interested in exchanging links. This is not my personal blog, although I do have one that has long been inactive.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

I got involved with a liberal blog and the author uses the word FIGHT so often, that that explains so much. Liberals are often INCITED to hate with words like 'fight,' and that contributes to the dumbing down of America and decrease in critical thinking.

What does that have to do with the rich paying, or not paying, more in taxes? If libs are asked the same question, they're more likely to respond with answers from their blogs that spew hatred and short-term solutions. Short term solutions, like: "sure, take more money from Bill Gates; after all it's only logical" LONG TERM There will come a time when we've tapped the Bill Gate's and Warren Buffets of this world and they HAVE no more money. What do we do then? How do we pay them back? Do we pay them back? Eventually, we'll live in a socialist country with everybody having about the same amount of $$ and no one is allowed to prosper based on merit. That is NOT what our country was founded on.

If there are those who want that model, fine. Let them go to countries which were founded on that paradigm. The US was NOT.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Team rn –Excellent insights! Once the term "fight" is used, rational thinking goes out the window because the issue has become a foregone conclusion.

The left’s weapon of choice is to politicize emotion. Once they've accomplished that, there’s no limit on the actions that the government has a mandate to take because emotions have no limits.

Today’s typical totalitarian leftists are obsessed with their feelings and therefore tend “to feel” they can ignore facts. The dangers of granting government limitless power to redistribute wealth are rationalized away by the left because it doesn’t make them-feel good.

The left’s true talent is its ability to use warm and fuzzy feelings to effect political power. For this, they will employ any means to obtain because of their belief that they are using the power for good.

To a leftist it doesn’t matter that others are forced to pick up the tab for their misguided crusades. It doesn’t matter that their ideas have failed countless times; they “feel good” about having tried.

Any suggestion that there are or should be limits to government largess, invites a response that it’s evil to even to suggest it!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Do I feel vindicated now? See Morning Joe this morning on President Obama's taxes. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Where's the crow when you need him, President Obama?

PLEASE WATCH, EVERYONE:

http://youtu.be/Ie63tFL0gnk

Now, I'm off to lower the flag for the Boston Marathon runners and watchers.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

The liberal left feels, "see, hes even told us! He campaigned on the fact that the rich aren't paying enough in taxes." They chose not to see the hypocrisy that even being one of the wealthy, he chooses not to work to revise the tax code; rather sling mud at people who use it as it is written.

The left also choose not to see that even though he took advantage of the same loopholes in the tax code, that he conveniently cherry picked Mitt Romney for his whipping boy. George Soros? Bill Gates? Jeffrey Immelt, who's GE paid $0.00 in taxes for 2 years and then was even awarded a 'jobs czar' position, or something like that.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

teamrn- This radically rich crowd is all for equality of means, except for themselves. They get to be crusaders for equality while expanding the government and lining their own pockets (all at the expense of sinful entrepreneurs).

The irony is that they fail to contribute their millions to the poor; they leave that to the “little people” while they grant vast powers to government which will decide the fate of millions.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

By, radically rich, do you mean the Mitt Romneys? He gives a fair amount of his income to charitable causes. Do you mean, the Hollywood Crowd? I question where their money goes except in several cases where its well known that they give.

I couldn't believe my ears when I heard from a liberal friend to the effect that Obama campaigned on sharing the wealth, he BELIEVES, BELIEVES and lives and breathes it! Well, if he believed so strongly and was so passionate about it, you'd think he'd revise the tax code (or appoint someone who's sole purpose it was to revise the tax code) so that the wealthy like he, didn't have loopholes they can slide through.

Or he wouldn't be so chummy with Jeffrey Immelt whose GE paid $0.00 in corporated taxes for TWO-not one, but TWO years. Instead, Obama moved heaven and earth and got that behemoth healthcare bill passed to save us some money and insure all. It does neither. It raises taxes and doesn't get everyone insured and gets more people unemployed. Strike three, AND YOU'RE OUT.

When I think of uber-rich (radically rich), I think of the Mitt Romneys, the Bill Gates, both of whom donate a fair amount to charity and don't "leave it up to the little people." The corporate jet crowd possible don't give to charity as much as they could. When push comes to shove, how many people who have a corporate jet, MUST have it? I'd say precious few, including Nancy Pelosi.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

''Obama campaigned on sharing the wealth,''One must understand the role of a '' neigborhood organizer'' to really understand what he means. The government has it and he will distribute it.2/14/13

Having It All for Free: 19 Things Obama Says Won’t Add to Deficit

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/havin...

USDA moves to end questionable food stamp ads after criticism

The Obama Legacy. As of April, more than 46 million people were in the program, which costs $80 billion a year.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/13/usda-mo...

let's not forget.Barak Obama Campaign Promises

http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon,

I think we're arguing from the same side of the fence, only some things we disagree on.

To the man's detriment, he only won by 51% majority and for an incubent, that's a pretty poor show. But, he's talked/deluded himself into thinking that gave him a MANDATE. Wrong. 'M' It gave him a MAJORITY and not a squeaky clean majority, at that. But, for some reason, the libs think the grass is green because of him and like Moses, he parts the seas and can do know wrong; they're the delusional ones. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing, but they've been hoodwinked into thinking he's the second coming.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

Do you remember when dad/mom said '' you are judged by the company you keep''?

Michelle Obama Admits Barack Hussein Obama's Home Country is Kenya

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M7Rp_Ghv6k&featur...

OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO - GEE, I WONDER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y

Obama Misleads on Opposition to Jobs Bill

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-misleads

George Soros - Meet Obamas Employer

http://hubpages.com/politics/George-Soros-Meet-Oba...

THE SHARED AGENDAS OF GEORGE SOROS and BARACK OBAMA

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31606...

2/24/09 President Barack Obama – [ F ] Address to Joint Session of Congress

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks...’s look back to what candidate

He represents big union.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

HUBBERS

Note that sometimes links provided will be redirected at times. sorry about that when it happens, censorship does prevail.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon, we have some REAL AGREEMENTS, so why is this post 'introduced/aimed' at me? I agree sith a lot, not all, but a lot of what you say. I'm con used


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

None of my post are meant to upset you or discredit anyone. Each and any other hub writters opinions are respected for their thoughts, wrong or right.Their are always two sides of a coin.Sorry if I offended you.


teamrns 3 years ago

It seems I need to remind my liberal friends of that truism, ..."THERE MUST BE TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY.." I thought it was common sense, but I guess not.

Thanks for extending the olive branch! Annie and no offense is ever taking. Well, rarely!!!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

teamrn-

When I mentioned the radically rich, I was referring to radically rich liberals who preach equality of means but then use their influence in government to secure tax breaks, subsidies and federal contracts for themselves while their less politically connected competitors are denied these advantages. To add insult to injury they even lobby to raise taxes on their less connected competitors while exempting themselves.

I have no problem with those who've gained their wealth because they've done a better job meeting the needs of their customers. What I have a problem with, is those who subvert the free market by joining with government to establish their own advantage in the marketplace.

The mitt Romney’s and the Bill Gates’s of the world have by in large gained their wealth by providing something of value to others and have also created opportunities and jobs. For this they should be commended not demonized! `


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon-

It’s really true that liberals aren't just wrong about some things, their consistently wrong about everything! How can this be? This you tube video explains why, it’s fascinating! The video is put out by the Heritage Foundation and it’s called- How modern liberals think. Here’s the link-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

I listened to the video, would recommend for another view of present affairs in our country.

OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO - GEE, I WONDER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y

Ryan and Van Hollen DEBATE Medicare Proposals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_SHUELJci4

THE SHARED AGENDAS OF GEORGE SOROS and BARACK OBAMA

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31606...

Congressional Progressive Caucus

Supporting organizations unions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progres

NOT THE US GOVERNMENT WE USED TO KNOW ?

http://commieblaster.com/progressives/index.html

Only a higher being can save our country.In Washington, today, right is wrong and wrong is right, sad to say.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon-

“OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO - GEE, I WONDER WHY?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y

Boy, this is scary stuff; I’ll have to look into it! If even a small amount of this is true it’s very shocking to say the least! If he’s gotten away with all this, you wonder why? If these charges can be proven, why haven’t they brought this to the courts? Is it because you can’t do that to a sitting president and why weren’t these charges made before he was elected?

Ryan and Van Hollen DEBATE Medicare Proposals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_SHUELJci4

As I listen to this debate, I think what’s striking is that Van Hollen seems to believe his view is legitimate without providing one shred of verifiable evidence. Even though Ryan can produce one verified fact after another, it doesn’t seem to faze Van Hollen, probably because he doesn’t feel the need defend his position with any real evidence.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

WBA108

House budget committee hearing.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/215621

Van Hollen Ryan in action


teamrn 3 years ago

It is Chris van Hollen's 'job' to tow the party line, but I find him to be almost as inflexible as DWS. I'll watch your span video tomorrow; "Walk the Line" and the BeeGees and a glass of wine make for much more relaxation on my Friday night!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

For your viewing pleasure.Paul Ryan, R- Wis., details the GOP plan BUDGET

http://www.kmbz.com/GOP-Weekly-Address-Rep-Paul-Ry...

12 April 2013

Obama's 2014 Budget Proposal

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/15094-ob...

Mar 23 2013


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon, this about sums up Mr. Obama's feeling on the debt and deficit:

"Up until this year, I had planned to spend $50,000 more per year than I make in salary at my job. And I had planned to add that extra $50,000 every year onto my credit card. But this year, I'm being financially responsible and reducing the deficit by $180,000 because I plan to spend only $32,000 more than I make, every year, for at least the next 10 years. And even though I will continue to add to my debts, I hope to get a really big promotion at work that will make a lot more money. So I expect that as my debts increase, it will remain proportionate with my income.

Harry Hopkins, former advisor to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was once reputed to have summarized to Republican fundraisers FDR's political strategy as “tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.” Though the quote was not an accurate reflection of Hopkins' words, the mis-attributed words were an able summary of the Roosevelt political strategy.

The Obama administration has added “borrow and borrow” to Roosevelt's political strategy."


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

There is a graph at on the internet called "National Debt by President" that effectively challenges the alleged facts laid out here. FDR spent, but he taxed heavily to compensate for it. He had effectively leveled the playing field between rich and poor alike, and made our country better for it.

Since the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, the the wealth and power brokers in this country have quietly and systematically legislated their way into control of the political process, because the middle class had become too powerful.

Reagan was their puppet master. Reagan cut taxes on the rich and then spent the government into submission. Had Reagan and the Bushes taken a balanced approach to their tax and spent policies the country would not be in the financial mess it is in.

Reagan and Bush tax cuts and spend policies should be regarded as illegal and the rich should be forced to pay back the money they stole from the federal and state budgets.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Arthur Bundy

''rich should be forced to pay back the money they stole from the federal and state budgets.'' How did the rich steal, can you explain with factual information.Who do you consider as the rich?Obama was not mentioned in your post, in 4 years Obama added $6 trillion to the national debt.


wmhoward4 profile image

wmhoward4 3 years ago from Baltimore Maryland (USA)

Losers who can't make money accuse the rich of stealing their money. What about someone who had a great idea, solved peoples' problems, created jobs and sold a lot of those problem solvers and made a profit? How is that stealing?


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

Jon Ewall:

Through the billions of dollars spent to lobby Congress to legislate major tax cuts and loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Buying elections to elect people focused solely on the agenda of corporations. Privatizing everything from the military to the prison system to maximize profits. Making sure that unions and their power is crippled and wages stay stagnant.

wmhoward4:

Did you look at the graph I suggested!!! NO!

I am not a loser. I am a registered sex offender, who is caught in a web of BS legislation that along with media hype and deceit can't get a decent job, because a background check alleges that one of my aliases is Ted Bundy!!!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Arthur Bundy -. “FDR spent, but he taxed heavily to compensate for it.”

The fallacy here is that FDR’S tax and spend programs were directly responsible for the record high employment that existed at the time.

” He had effectively leveled the playing field between rich and poor alike”

Big government redistributive tax and spend policies do anything but level the playing field. Raising taxes on businesses most often causes the decision makers to shift their critical resources to more productive areas. These folks aren’t just going to just stand by and let the government pick their pockets. For the workers who depend on these businesses for their livelihood it often means layoffs, limited opportunities, higher costs of living and government dependency. In this environment the gap between the rich and poor grows wider not narrower as you suppose.

The true effect of these types of interventions is to favor larger politically connected businesses at the expense of their smaller competitors. The vast majority of revenue extracted from the productive private sector is used to expand bureaucracies and pay off their big business or big labor political allies

“The wealth and power brokers in this country have quietly and systematically legislated their way into control of the political process, because the middle class had become too powerful”

Liberals who favor government tax and spend policies now control the largest share of the wealth and power in America. The middle class has been devastated by the liberal agenda as described above. The same folks that are beating the drums for taxing the rich are the ones responsible for the problem.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Sorry for taking so long to get on everyone’s comments, I’ve been away on business for about a week.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Team and Jon

"Up until this year, I had planned to spend $50,000 more per year than I make in salary at my job. And I had planned to add that extra $50,000 every year onto my credit card. But this year, I'm being financially responsible and reducing the deficit by $180,000 because I plan to spend only $32,000 more than I make, every year, for at least the next 10 years. And even though I will continue to add to my debts, I hope to get a really big promotion at work that will make a lot more money. So I expect that as my debts increase, it will remain proportionate with my income.”

Liberal politicians with the aid of a willing media are so easily able to hoodwink the public with presumptuous and fallacious reasoning. I hope people will wise up and look into these things and not with just a narrow self-interest but to see the big picture.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Wmhoward4-

“What about someone who had a great idea, solved peoples' problems, created jobs and sold a lot of those problem solvers and made a profit? How is that stealing?”

My sentiments exactly, this is the morality of a grownup, those who provide something of value should be compensated for it. The morality of the left has more to do with class envy and personal greed. Thanks for commenting!


Annie 3 years ago

WBA- I so much agree and throughout this whole discussion I've failed to see how raising taxes on the wealthier few who have provided a service to society, is anything but a temporary fix. We ought to be looking for permanent solutions. This suggestion (or raising taxes on the wealthy is no more than a temporary fix, a band-aid as it were.

Some may say, aha, she must be wealthy or a recipient of some of the wealthy's money. Au contra ire. My husband and are at the bottom of the heap; but that gives me no more right to Bill Gate's money than anyone else. Just because it seems equitable? What happens when Bill Gates runs out of money to give me? GREECE IS WHAT HAPPENS!


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

wba108@yahoo.com

The graph I mentioned speaks volumes to me. It was the New Deal that taxed heavily while spending heavily. By 1976 the National Debt was manageable. It was, and is the Reagan tax cuts and spending heavily that created this National Debt issue we face today.

There is another graph "A Comparison of Corporate Profits and Wages Over the Last 70 Years" found at http://www.electablog.com that reaffirms my point. Corporate Profits are at an all time high while wages in this country have stagnated.

Had wages in this country been allowed a cost of living increase along with the cost of production increases that corporations enjoy, I believe the playing field would still be somewhat level, and the National Debt would not be the issue it has become.

The housing bubble might not have burst had cost of living wage increases been in place along with these so-called toxic mortgages. It was major corporate greed that caused that situation to exist. I believe toxic mortgages were designed to undercut and paralyze the middle class.

Whether it's Democrat or Republican consequences that are to blame is not the issue. It is the very effective efforts of dividing public opinion to avoid any real consensus on the part of the general public that is the issue.

As for who controls what. President Eisenhower cited the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex". We now have a Standing Army which is unconstitutional. But, allegedly necessary in the face of nuclear paranoia. We live in a world where our own nuclear deterrent can destroy the world.

Corporations have effectively privatized just about every aspect of all federal and state budgets. Our Standing Army is one of the results of that.

While at the same time Corporations have effectively limited their tax responsibilities. Which keeps government regulation at bay, and corporate accountability from seeing the light of day.

The best example of this comes in the form of what our nation does for the people who do the fighting for our nation. Our military comes home to an antiquated and out-of-date veterans services platform, that is the very essence of what Corporate America does for those who keep them in business.

We now live in a society of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. That is not how or why the Constitution was designed.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Annie-

“My husband and are at the bottom of the heap; but that gives me no more right to Bill Gate's money than anyone else. Just because it seems equitable?”

Good intentions are over rated, in fact it’s the very material used, on that road to where no one wants to go!


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Wba, it is NOT right that someone who worked hard for what he has, has to take care of me when things are good for him, So, I've had it rough; does that make it fair and right and quitable that HE have it rough as well?

There is such a thing as personal responsibility. I'm responsible for me. Sure, I'm responsible to my fellow man, but every society that has really implemented WE;RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER as their MO-has failed. Look at Greece, they took care of each other to the nth degree; then when there was no more of Bill Gate's $$ to pay their bills and be spread around, they reacted like animals. If my life is to be the life of the poor, at least I'll have the dignity of making my own way and not leeching off of others.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Arthur Bundy

Because of the many issues that you’ve brought up, this response will likely be quite lengthy.

"It was, and is the Reagan tax cuts and spending heavily that created this National Debt issue we face today.”

Tax cuts don’t cause debt, spending does. The reason we create debt is because we spend more than we take in. The Reagan tax cuts, along with the Kennedy and Coolidge tax cuts all generated more (not less) revenues. Also Congress technically controls the purse strings of government and during the Reagan years, Congress had large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

“Corporate Profits are at an all-time high while wages in this country have stagnated.”

According to a study done by the Federal Reserve of St Louis, labor’s share of national income has averaged 70.5% (of national income) for the last 50 years with little variation. Studies that show wages stagnating, conveniently ignore overall compensation including the rising cost of employee benefits. If the relative cost of employee benefits rises, it follows that the increase in wages will stagnate.

“The housing bubble might not have burst had cost of living wage increases been in place along with these so-called toxic mortgages. It was major corporate greed that caused that situation to exist. I believe toxic mortgages were designed to undercut and paralyze the middle class.”

The housing bubble was caused by the government intervention in the private sector not corporate greed. Government sponsored legislation mainly favored by liberals, motivated lending institutions to make unwise loans that without the government backing, they would have never made. Other factors in the housing bubble include the Fed keeping interest rates low for too long and the fallout from 911. Toxic mortgages were only made possible by the actions of the government. It’s misguided too attribute these problems to the free markets or the private sector because the source of the problem is the government.

“While at the same time Corporations have effectively limited their tax responsibilities. Which keeps government regulation at bay, and corporate accountability from seeing the light of day.”

The vast majority of corporations that have limited their tax liabilities are those who are politically connected with the current administration. The reason for this corruption is government intervention in the private sector

Government regulation is more the problem than the solution, in regards to corporate accountability. When the government intervenes in the private sector it artificially creates winners and losers in the market place. This is a recipe for corruption! The free market has its own brutally effective measures of accountability. If a company defrauds the public or produces unwanted or inferior products, that company will go bankrupt regardless of how many years it had faithfully served its customers. The government, on the other hand often gets rewarded for poor and damaging decisions. If a regulatory agency policy harms the public, the response other than an occasional slap on the wrist, is to farther empower that very agency to try to fix the problems they themselves created.

“Whether it's Democrat or Republican consequences that are to blame is not the issue. It is the very effective efforts of dividing public opinion to avoid any real consensus on the part of the general public that is the issue.”

There may be some truth to this. The political class in Washington seems intent on growing the government and subverting individual freedoms regardless of the party elected, although I obviously see the democrats as far more dangerous in this regard.

“President Eisenhower cited the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex". We now have a Standing Army which is unconstitutional”

I’ll admit that I don’t yet have a fully formed opinion as the threat of the "Military-Industrial Complex". You may have a valid point here because a large standing peacetime military is a very effective way to grow the government. My next course of study will have to be, what was the true founding vision for foreign policy? Having said that though, I don’t see any Constitutional grounds for the Federal government to finance any social program or enforce any wealth redistribution scheme. The Constitution charges State and local governments with all decisions and power regarding social welfare. The federal government does have a legitimate power of raising armies in defense of the nation.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Team-

“Sure, I'm responsible to my fellow man, but every society that has really implemented WE;RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER as their MO-has failed.”

There’s a big difference between helping others because you feel it’s the right thing to do and helping others because you’re forced to. I truly believe that we’re all equal in the eyes of God but that doesn’t mean we’re all equal in skill, talent and appearance or that we all make equally good life decisions. We can’t create an equal society when God ordained a diverse one.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

I am very impressed with your attitude.

I like the idea of intelligent discourse. It is in short supply considering some of the people I have spoken to in other articles.

I need to think, but I will respond.

Thank you.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Arthur Bund, YOU'RE IN COLORADO SPRINGS? So am I!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Arthur Bundy

Thanks for your kind words and civility! I agree with you that using manners when discussing politics seems to be a skill that is in short supply.

Regards


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

OBAMACARE

Partial list of taxes and fees in health overhaul

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/partial-list-taxes-...

But the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will take the biggest hit, starting next year.

additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income. Together these are the biggest tax increase in the health care law.

Tax the rich, that's great.Those on the bottom will be paying more.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon, The thing is, maybe the wealthiest will take the creates hit, but the middle and lower middle classes are going to be hit hard and are already hit.

Another thing that concerns me, "— Employer penalties. Starting in 2014, companies with 50 or more employees that do not offer coverage will face penalties if at least one of their employees receives government-subsidized coverage. The penalty is $2,000 per employee, but a company's first 30 workers don't count toward the total."

The goal in this economy-or lack thereof- is to try to CREATE jobs. When employers who are barely eeking by are faced with penalties, the LAST thing they're going to do, the last thing that they'll be financially able to do, is make that part-time position, a full-time position. Or make that position without benefits, one WITH benefits.

They WANT to create more jobs, but they're hamstrung, because our POTUS wanted to get his name on the map. Companies instead of creating more full time positions will be taking more positions part-time. There will be, AND ALREADY IS, a move towards an increase in 29 hour-a-week jobs.

Getting another job isn't always the answer, because 29 hours a week only gives you time for another 29 hour a week job, neither of which has to pay you benefits. But employers are finding it more economical to pay the penalty fo rnot providing health insurance. So much for company loyalty and we're all in this together. It's now "each man to his own." SAD. Thank you, BO.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

The House has passed a bill to repeal OBAMACARE 3 TIMES. The bill would be passed in the Senate except for Senator Reid and the UNION supported party Senators.The people need to concentrate on how to convince only a small numbers of Dem Senators to force Reid to move to a vote. The President would than be forced to put on a Chicago style arm twister on some Senators.Hubbers, let's unite for a better Health plan for all citizens.5/1/13 Train Wreck Ahead

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/train...

details of President Obama's Affordable Care Act


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon, I think we're in agreement more than disagreement. How can it work if Dirty Harry tables bills that could prevent reelection of D-Senators before they come to a vote?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

''if Dirty Harry tables bills '' As long as the media keeps running cover for the President and Reids antics including the silence of the die hard Dem party members who don't believe in doing the work that the people sent them to do.

Recommed watching c-span 1,2 and three hearings on the IRS, AP REPORTERS AND LIBYA

.5/8/13

Benghazi Whistle blower Hearing on C-Span3 live and un edited!

POTUS ‘’ to tell the TRUTH ‘’ Benghazi A MEDIA COVER UP

PART 1 http://www.cspanvideo.org/program/SConsulat


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon, slowly the gild is coming off the rose, especially with this API thing. You heard Joe Scarborough, EVEN CHRIS MATTEWS got into the act. Throw in a little Benghazi and IRS and all the other foibles and PURE ******* and will the walls start tumbling down?

Carl Bernstein contributes quite a bit: Spend 9 minutes:

http://youtu.be/OcJL4mFoZNE


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Jon, this is actually what I meant to post:

http://youtu.be/KzjE919FJd8


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

The media has covered for the Obama administration, maybe they finally woke up

.4/27/12

Team Obama's scary crusade against affordable, reliable ENERGY

The worst part of Obama’s crusade against affordable, reliable energy is that it’s an undeclared war

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/27/epa-vide...

10/1/12

Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstre...

Hopefully honest members of Congress WILL STAY ON THE ATTACK AND EXPOSE THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHO THEY really are.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

I think this has become OUR responsibility. The way it is SUPPOSED to work is that we elect these guys and when THEY see something wrong, they police it. Unfortunately, that's not how its happening, so it's up to the citizens to throw out the reps who aren't doing what WE want them to do.

The same goes with the press. If we're not pleased with the POTUS, then we kick their union in the teeth. This is why I'm against unions. They keep the incompetent Chris Mattews on and on and on when he doesn't do what Dylan Ratigan or Charles Krauthammer does-they do their jobs where CM and AL Sharpton (who now calls himself one of the press) sensationalizes.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

I have been very sick the last couple of weeks. Congested all the way down to my toes.

I have been in Colorado Springs since 1965. I am a graduate of Mitchell High School class of 1973. I live at Constitution and Academy, and have since 1969.

1933: The Depression Aftermath

In reaction to the Great Depression, Congress passed the Banking Act of 1933, better known as the Glass-Steagall Act, calling for the separation of commercial and investment banking and requiring use of government securities as collateral for Federal Reserve notes. The Act also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), placed open market operations under the Fed and required bank holding companies to be examined by the Fed, a practice that was to have profound future implications, as holding companies became a prevalent structure for banks over time. Also, as part of the massive reforms taking place, Roosevelt recalled all gold and silver certificates, effectively ending the gold and any other metallic standard.

1935: More Changes to Come

The Banking Act of 1935 called for further changes in the Fed’s structure, including the creation of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) as a separate legal entity, removal of the Treasury Secretary and the Comptroller of the Currency from the Fed’s governing board and establishment of the members’ terms at 14 years. Following World War II, the Employment Act added the goal of promising maximum employment to the list of the Fed’s responsibilities. In 1956 the Bank Holding Company Act named the Fed as the regulator of bank holding companies owning more than one bank, and in 1978 the Humphrey-Hawkins Act required the Fed chairman to report to Congress twice annually on monetary policy goals and objectives.

These last two pieces of information comes from a brief history of the Federal Reserve. It should help some people understand why I look at things the way I do.

Starting with President Reagan these aspects of the lessons of the Great Depression and the New Deal were repealed in the name of trickle down economics. I believe this opened the door to far less accountability on the part of corporations and banking institutions, and cause the latest financial meltdown.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Arthur Bundy, from a fellow 'Springer,' I don't envy you the congestion and feeling ill for so long. (This growing older 'thing' isn't all that it's cracked up to be, eh! But, I've got you beat-I didn't know there was a contest involved!- with a HS graduation in '69.

I'm not as learned as you re: history, but my husband is and I rely on him and looking things up for my facts which is why my posts lack substantiation of certain matierals and conviction of others, Call me Peggy Noonan-though I'm not sure that's much of a compliment!!

I find myself less based on facts, and more based on finding positive solutions, but using facts like you presented in a very non-partisan way, on which to base my opinions. I don't take everything I read at face value, but one has to begin to trust SOMEWHERE Like Bob Dylan admonishes, (or did my brother steal this line from Dylan?) "believe NONE of what you hear and only HALF of what you see!"


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

teamrn:

Let us just say that the spring hasn't sprung yet, but it's getting softer.

I was locked up for a very long time. You learn very quickly that there are two types of doing time. There is controlling how you do your time, and there is letting time do you. The idea being that you can make the best of it or let yourself be angry and therefore miserable. I chose to read and study. I also chose to focus on how I had failed to be accountable in my life up to that point.

The biggest lesson I got out of it was: The Bible says to "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." I learned that it you don't love yourself, you can't possibly know how to love your neighbor.

Accountability is everything to me, now.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Arthur Bundy

Based on my research so far, the regulatory actions of the Roosevelt administration and the Fed in the wake of the Great Depression aimed at the banking industry, did nothing to increase accountability in the banking industry. As a matter of fact, just the opposite was the case, it breed corruption, some fellow Democrats even referred to the New Deal as a “Fascist Tract”.

Much if not most of FDR’s constitutionally questionable government intrusions and regulations were actually written by the very institutions he claimed to be clamping down on. General Electric executives wrote large portions of New Deal legislation and in doing so conveniently regulated their own competition out of the market place.

I am convinced that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause the current economic crisis. The repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with mortgage securitization. Banks have been selling of their mortgages since the creation of Fanny Mae in 1938.

Glass-Steagall restricted services that bank holding companies could provide to customers such as investments and insurance.

There is no evidence that any banks got in trouble because of their securities affiliates. Banks got into trouble by investing in bad mortgages or mortgage backed securities. A number of factors precipitated the 2008 economic crisis the largest of which was the U.S. government housing policy.

Restoring Glass-Steagall would hurt small banks and investors the most. Repealing Glass-Steagall softened the impact of the financial crisis. Restoring it, I believe would have grave consequences.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

It is my understanding that repealing the glass-steagal act changed the way commodities were being bought by investors. The changes allowed speculation investors to purchase commodities with less money upfront than the previous law required. Oil speculators drove oil prices up hence creating oil prices to increase up to $124.00 a barrel from a $45.00 market price.Hedgefunds and large banks were a partner in creating the recession.Democrats took majority control of Congress in 2007 and 2008 changing and ignoring request from the minority party to take actions.President Bush was blamed for the recession and so called banking failures.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Hi Jon-

Sorry about taking so long to get back to your comment. It’s highly possible that I’m not privy to all the implications of the repeal of Glass- Steagall. The bill I think you are referring to is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which undid parts of Glass-Steagall.

This legislation did not alter the lending standards and the amount of debt banks can take on relative to their equity. It’s my guess that if lending institutions allowed investors to investors to purchase commodities with less money upfront, it had more to do with the assurance that the government would back their risky policy which turned out to be the case.

Here is one referrence to this subject:

http://www.nationalreview.com/content/villain-phil


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

WBA

Thanks for the link and information. The move in 1999 was another move by Clinton before leaving office. I am well aware of the banking low income debacle. The Rev. Jesse Jackson had the locals picket the Chicago banks to knuckle under to the community.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

I have spent some time thinking about the most effective answer I can come up with to argue for rich paying their fair share of the tax burden.

This Moyers' video is a good start.

Moyers Moment (2009): Michael Perino on the Pecora Commission

July 15, 2012

by BillMoyers.com

4

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s hearings before Congress last month were strikingly similar — in circumstances if hardly in results — to the 1930s Senate Banking Committee hearings known as the Pecora Commission. Headed by Sicilian immigrant Ferdinand Pecora, the investigation into the causes of the Wall Street crash of 1929 resulted in, among other regulatory checks, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the founding of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In this 2009 Moyers Moment from Bill Moyers Journal, Bill talks to Pecora’s biographer, Michael Perino, about the son of a shoemaker who overcame stereotypes to take on big Wall Street bankers, leaving a long-standing legacy of effective banking oversight.

Watch the full conversation between Bill Moyers, Michael Perino, and economist Simon Johnson, or read Michael Winship’s essay about the Pecora Commission on the Bill Moyers Journal site.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

I would like to add, that there are millions of Americans who lost their retirement savings as a fundamental result of these changes, which was the primary reason that The Glass- Steagall Act came to exist.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Arthur: "I can come up with to argue for rich paying their fair share of the tax burden." I felt a book coming on and each time I started to answer this question, I didn't have the time set aside to put tougher cogent thoughts.

But now, I'll finish. My reasons for saying the rich should NOT pay more in taxes (or what some entity deems FAIR) :

1) WHO will determine what is fair?

2) WHO ever said life was fair? Each of us has gone to the 'school' of hard knocks' in one way or another (health, looks, relationships, wealth or other financial challenges, not being gifted in athletics-pick what fits you)- do I go around demanding that a law be passed so that I at 60, have the shape and beauty of my 21 year old niece-because I think it unfair that she's having the youth I never had? It is irrational- so why do we think that life ought to hand us everything we want? Because some people have what they want, does that mean EVERYONE should have what OTHERS have? Gimme, gimme, gimme.

3) IMHO, I am no more ENTITLED to the fruits of Bill Gates's labors than the man on the moon. Yes, f he were to FREELY give away his millions and Id benefit, that is one thing, but for him to be forced to do so, is like another tax.

I can hear others now, saying, that taxation is fair and legal and Constitutional, so why not taxation? (as above)? There are those who strongly disagree or question the Constitutionality of a personal income tax.

Then there is the fairness argument of taxation system. Everyone KNOWS our taxation system is NOT FAIR. For starters, GE who makes millions in profit pays $0.00 in taxes for TWO YEARS? That is a primo example of an unfair tax system.

That looked like a digression , but it was more an ELABORATION of # 3.

4)My 4th reason that I don't feel (and I'll use Mitt Romney as the example this time) is that the rich do create jobs. Sure, many throw around the money that they make and buy yachts and more cars-but that keeps the boat and automakers in business.

The remaining business owners put the money they make back into their businesses, buying more equipment (so the equipment-makers stay in business) or are now able to expand and have an office for their business. This employs people: having an office means phone services (keeps people employed), janitorial services (keeps people employed), water cooler services (keeps the delivery men employed). Oh, the roof to the new building in which the office is located, leaked (another roofer is employed) and there are countless examples like that.

And so far I've ignored the obvious answer: those people who have a business (the rich) EMPLOY you and me directly so that our hours won't be cut to 29 hours a week. When we're employed full-time, we can use the money we make, to pay our bills, which contributes to the salary of one more person at VISA, or Best Buy.

This is a caveat: it really isn't good form (IMHO) to use Bill Moyers as an example for a discussion about whether or not the rich should pay more in taxes, because Bill Moyers is one of the more decidedly liberal voices and the rich paying more in taxes is generally speaking, an argument put forth by liberals. That's like asking Al Sharpton has an unbiased view of what is racist or what is not. From the get-go, the commentary is loaded.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

teamrn:

I have some more research to do before I proceed, but I need to say that I think you are missing the point.

It's not about what is fair, it's about accountability. If Mr. Moyers is liberal I could care less. What he is, is the last bastion of serious journalists in this country who do the research, fact find the research and then tell their story.

What is called to mind is when Walter Cronkite went to Vietnam to see for himself what the facts were and came back and challenged America to see the truth about that war. Which was very consistent with the facts laid out in the Pentagon Papers, which was authored by none other than Secretary of Defense McNamara.

That kind of journalism is a lost art today. Bill Moyers is one of that last great journalists of our time.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Ok, let's set aside the journalism, which really isn't the question. It's SHOULD THE RICH PAY MORE IN TAXES. I've stated why I don't think they ought to (and I'm one of the many who would stand to benefit it they DID pay more), but asking/or requiring that they pay more, to keep me afloat ISN'T FAIR, either; especially if I've squandered my money and they've been frugal with theirs.

Margaret Thatcher did say something wise and that was 'eventually the rich would run out of money.' Then, what do we do? If the rich paid more in taxes, if they paid EVERY cent they earned, that would only fund the government for a while; and then we'd really be up a creek without a paddle.

We have to think of some other way to tackle the debt problem and not throw it all on the backs of the rich. If they're taxes are increased, you'd best believe that some of that trickle down effect would be taken out on their employees.

Suddenly, that full-time job would become part-time, the bennies would be decreased, instead of investing in that new sign, the other awning would stay until it was torn and tattered and never be replaced Salaries would not keep up with the cost of living.

As far as Bill Moyers being the last bastion of journalistic integrity, you may be sniffing really close to home. I'll have to review your link a bit more closely.

I think without knowing it, and not intending it and NOT being a journalist, Mr. Snowden has revealed the kind of things that Bill Moyers has. No, I'm not saying that the two are at ALL the same, but they both share a role in exposing an Achilles heel of our government. Patriotic? I'll lt others decide, but food for thought/grist for a mill.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

The Pentagon Papers were released to the world by Daniel Ellsberg. I would call Mr. Snowden more likely akin to him. It was the release of the Pentagon Papers that helped Nixon cross the legal limits of his presidential power and sink his own presidency. Nixon also created one of the most worthless agencies in American History when he created the DEA in response to soldiers drug use in Vietnam, suggesting it was a communist conspiracy.

As for the main topic of discussion, Ronald Reagan did more damage than good when he reduced the tax rate on the wealthy and then went on a spending spree.

I have been looking for an episode of 60 Minutes that I saw where one of Reagan's own economic advisers admits that the rich made out like bandits thanks to his tax policies, which the President had adopted.

At that time the National Debt was still manageable.

I believe that Reagan's spending and tax policies were designed to cripple the Federal and State governments financially. I believe that wealth that is unregulated does more harm than good.

My question to you is...when does the accumulation of wealthy stop being about success and become a bigger burden to society, than poverty?

Try looking at where the middle class was when Reagan took office and started crushing the unions in this country.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

Addendum:

His name is Bruce Bartlett. He has interviewed with Bill Moyers, "Bruce Bartlett on Where the Right Went Wrong" and not 60 minutes. I don't entirely agree with his conclusions about Reaganomics, but his central theme supports my concerns about our present economic situation.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Arthur, I'm not looking at Nixon or Regan. I'm looking at the question, should the rich pay more in taxes. No more, no less. I know we need to learn from history and go to the school of hard knocks sometimes, but answer the question. Not with history, but with REASONS.

There is a definite time and place for history and anyone who ignores history, does so at his peril, but the discussion of SHOULD THE RICH PAY MORE IN TAXES needs to have some meaning other than that couched in historical perspective.

Annie


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

OBAMCARE

The Obama's don't want this video to be seen in 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_2s4tob5U8

HOPEFULLY THEY PAID THE FULL AMOUNT

4/10/12

Potential impact of Obama's 'Buffett rule ' President Obama’s

2011 tax returns rate was . 20.5 % , a lot less than his secretary http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/20...

12/25/12

Partial list of taxes and fees in health overhaul

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/partial-list-taxes-...

But the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will take the biggest hit

7/7/12

IRS to play major role in Health-care system ( penalty/ tax)

CBO estimates that 4 million people will pay the penalty

The rich ( whoever they are ) makes more money , hence pay their share to the treasury as the law requires.Congress makes up the loop holes, blame Congress!

Let's not condemn the rich from making profit. Profit is good for taxpayers, the money runs the government and pays to help the poor and needy.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

I think the history speaks for itself. Without the lessons of history that I have proposed, what other perspective answers your question?

1. The billions spent on elections today on both national and local levels where the only result is a totally dysfunctional U.S. Congress.

2. The business of manipulating the legislative process to make sure that one perspective, the corporate perspective is all that gets serviced.

From attempts to destroy Social Security to discrediting and destroying unions. Clearly designed to weaken the power designated to the People of the United States through our Constitution.

3. The business of war, whether it needs to exist or not. This is about wealth for the sake of wealth and has nothing to do with protecting society from the evils in the world. Mostly done through the art of disinformation. The Bush II Administration used a PR firm to sell Americans on the need for War with Iraq. Pardon the history, but here is a clear example of how cases for fear have been raised to manipulate the results. Where even the CIA has talked about "BACKLASH" associated with aggressive and dangerously one-sided foreign policy.

4. Another great example of disinformation is man's industrial effort that does "NOT" have anything to do with global warming.

I have lived in Colorado most of my life. This season is one of the worst fire seasons on record and last season was not much better. The climate has changed and I for one have no doubt that the behavior of man is responsible. In January a couple of years ago

I actually saw fly alive and well. Wealth for the sake of wealth is the only culprit, but disinformation flows like a torrent.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the only news broadcast I take seriously. This last week one of the episodes had a segment that dealt with the difference between how Canadians view their banking system and how we view ours. Canadians trust their banking system. Why is it that Americans don't trust their banking system? Simple, there is no accountability attached to our banking system.

I could go on all day bringing up examples of where wealth has clearly demonstrated the desire to exploit and abuse of their fellow Americans for the sake of protecting their wealth.

Taxation constitutes the only effective equalizer. It's one of those situations where good people get burned by the actions of the richest and most power hungry few.

When People like the Koch Brothers play both ends against the middle and profit no matter what they do. When they can manipulate elections and legislation to protect their bottom line and get away with it. When they can use their wealth to gut the spending capability of those agencies that should be holding them to account. Taxation is the only answer to forcing them to clear up their act.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

I'm with you Jon. The wealthy earned their money and they should be free to CHOSE what to do with it. If they chose to hoard it all, well, I believe what goes around, comes around.

On the other hand, should they chose to, like Bill Gates, help others, they'll reap rewards in addition to the financial remuneration. But, THERE IS A CHOICE. If people don't want the wealthy to have a choice, a freedom to choose, they THEY can move. Sweden and Denmark will take them and I hear the immigration policies are alright.

Se, let Mitt keep the millions he has earned and then doled out to help thousands. Somehow, it's okay when Bill Gates makes millions and has a chance to choose what he wants to do with it, but put the same shoe on Mitt Romney's foot and somehow IT IS WRONG, it is so wrong, that he SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CHOSE. Do I hear double standard?

No, the wealthy should keep their money and decide for themselves what they would like to do with it.

There's a line from a movie that I think a fair $# of the wealthy ascribe to, and that was a line Uncle Ben uttered in Superman (I think the original), "With great power comes great responsibility" The wealthy know it more acutely than anyone else and the majority of them use their money wisely. There are a few Lindsay Lohans (but she's darn near broke)


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

"what other perspective answers your question?" The perspective that takes into consideration history and the lessons that should have been learned from history and the perspective of common sense.

Common sense tells us that if you kill the job makers, those same job makers won't be creating jobs; NO MATTER HOW MUCH HISTORY you try and spin. The job-creators won't be around to create. PERIOD.

Then there's the perspective that I've alluded to many times in this discussion, taxing the wealthy to someone ELSES' standard of 'what's fair and what isn't fair' will only make the wealthy leave these shores. Then where would we be? Did a poor man ever hire you? I doubt. It was someone who was well off or someone who had a businsss who was barely eeking out a living. Kill him and you're out a job. Seems ilk simple math (no, not even math, but ARITHMETIC) to me. What is not to get? I'm serious.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

Disinformation is a specialty of Fox News.

I did not spin anything.

You live in Colorado. You know that what I said about the climate here is fact. Pikes Peak is in my back yard. This was the first time in several years snow actually accumulated on top of Pikes Peak in a long time. And, it did not start until late April into early May.

I remember when Halloween usually marked the beginning of winter with the first big snow storm of the year, and winter was with us in all it's glory into April. It hasn't been like that in a long time. We are in the worst drought this area of the country has ever faced in recorded history.

We can't keep hoping that late winter storms are going to salvage the water supply. But, I give you this, these conditions will make the Two Forks Dam a reality. It does not hurt that the State Water Board has been using these recent fire disasters going back to before the Hayman fire to buy as much of the land in the Deckers area as possible, because somebody wants their dam no matter what is will cost.

As for wealth and taxation. Wealth unrestricted got into us the Depression in the 30's and the same lack of accountability hammered us this time in 2008.

How can you sit there challenging me, when the extreme tax and spend policies of Reagan, Bush, and Bush, is what put us in this financial mess in the first place.

And as for healthcare, Canada is not socialism gone awry, it's accountability at it's finest.

You do the math.


Patriot Quest profile image

Patriot Quest 3 years ago from America

Arthur I love you pot smoking gay Colorado boys, but you haven't a clue, go listen to some more john denver and roll another one, The rich come from Canada DAILY to get surgery over here! So what do you mean by finest? Obama is now holding off implementing health care until AFTER the next elections? If it is such a good thing then explain that? The rich built the middle class in this country and still do! Captalism is good for everyone! And for weather? We are going through a cycle, remember the dust bowl? hottest day in Co was in the 30s I believe......what was it then? And if you were seeking truth then you would acknowledge Obama has spent more than every president put together in HISTORY! therefore making Bush look like a choir child!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Arthur Bundy

'' when the extreme tax and spend policies of Reagan, Bush, and Bush, is what put us in this financial mess in the first place.'' REALLY

1/30/13

Obama is not a king

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/201...

President Obama then quickly ran up another $6 trillion of debt

10/1/12

Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstre...

Friday, 12 April 2013

Obama's 2014 Budget Proposal: Tax, Spend, Elect — and Borrow

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/15094-obama-...

We need to come back to the real world and recognize that the Obama propaganda has truly affected a lot of free thinkers.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

Jon:

You seem to like to use sources. I have a few sources for you.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/12/...

I find this graph very interesting in the sense that it shows our GDP up against the National Debt over the course of our history. The only time the National debt ever came to a point that it over took the GDP was during World War II. This was at a time when taxes on the rich was at about 90%. I think it was actually more. FDR was not just spending he was taxing and spending. I don't think I need to establish why that was necessary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-...

This next graph is focused on what has been a rirual of reduced tax and spend ever since. With the added benefit of showing where things might have been without all this reduced tax and spend.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

This next graph is my favorite. It focuses on the National Debt since 1929. Notice that once the National Debt peaked during World War II it continued to be effectively paid down until Reagan and the two Bushes came to office with their cut taxes and spend policies.

I don't like what the President has done. But he faces an extreme and irrational conservative view that really does more harm than good.


Patriot Quest profile image

Patriot Quest 3 years ago from America

Arthur how can a view that set the tone for the greatest country on earth do more harm than good? Ever compare the Tea Party to the Occupy wall street crowd? Who do you want to hang with? Ever compare citizen liberals to daily conservatives? We now have more folks recieving entitlement assistance than we do working in this country and there are jobs in the paper every morning! Arthur you must be smarter than that????????


teamrns 3 years ago

Patriot, in Arthur's defense, I'll tell you he lives in a city where the # of jobs in the paper every money is SCANT. I know, I live in that same city.

But, I ask Arthur to forget the table and sources and put HIS thinking cap on and use as HIS source, the 'School of Common Sense.' As those numbers on entitlements increase, where is the money to pay them (that includes me) going to come from?

I still have yet to hear a cogent reason, for WHY THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE IN TAXES-other than a fairness argument. I'd like to hear from someone as to why that seems to be a good, rock-solid idea, becaue I need some 'vincing!

Annie


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrns

It's call SOCIALISM


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

Patriot Quest:

I see that you seem to espouse the Tea Party and you seem to resent the Occupy Wall Street Movement. I actually believe they are shades of the same concerns.

It wasn't until I was in prison that I learned to understand that my father was Southern Democrat at my birth who became a Republican in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's. He along with many Southerners followed Strom Thurmond's lead.

As a result, it is my belief that we are witnessing the true nature of the modern day Republican Party. And, primarily the focus of the Tea Party. Most of these people are reacting to a change that Southern Democrats were facing in the 60's and couldn't do it. The idea of equal rights for black men then, and a black man as President of the United States now.

They seem to see government handouts as the culprit, or more to the point, the so-called liberal bench's that legislated and /or still legislate from the bench.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement sees government using a blind eye allowing very powerful and wealthy people to buy and dictate the legislation of the government to their advantage. They see their world as completely out of their control. I think they want more accountability from their government not more handouts.

What I see is Social Darwinism.

I see some very powerful and very wealthy people playing both ends of the American population against itself. To keep the public from forming any real consensus. And therefore, any real control over our government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

My favorite moment of 2012, was watching Carl Rove living in a state of denial election night, when he was faced with the fact, that the so-called 47% had spoken.

As for Mr. Ewall...Socialism is a by-word for Social Darwinism. If don't understand it...attack it.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Arthur Bundy

What’s a Socialist?

A democratic Marxism, and it succeeded, even in (shh!) the United States

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/sunday-review/wh...

SO BE IT


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Arthur Bundy, You addessed this to Patriot, but I'm taking the liberty of throwing in my two cents.

I had one post ready to go last night, but it didn't save it and I lost it.

I do remember commenting on the program, WIC It is no dought that infants need this help, they need milk in their early years-but not until their 20s! This is what Republicans are against.

We have a law on the books to help the needy, and a good law it is, but children do grow up and the law doesn't reflect this fact.

"I see that you seem to espouse the Tea Party and you seem to resent the Occupy Wall Street Movement. I actually believe they are shades of the same concerns."

Same concerns? One movement, the Tea Party, has a clear goal of returning this country to the Constitution. They'd like us to adhere to both the letter and spirit of the law that was laid down in 1789.

The Occupy movement, had no clear goal that I could see other than to raise awareness that they were unhappy.

What a selfish thing. Thousands are mal-ad[ted unemployed or underemployed and their concern was to raise awareness that things were not equitable in their minds? Deal with itL THE WORLD IS NOT EQUITABLE!

But, the thinking of 'me, mostest, bestest' and if crapping in your lawn and causing you to lose thousands in business happens...Oh well!

The fact that they put their vapid concerns over the millions of unemployed and other problems facing this nation, is one reasons that occupiers did not win any popularity prizes and is getting quite a rise out of me. But, there are a ton of Americans who think like me; we know of WHAT they oppose, but we also feel that their focus was in the wrong place.

This was a movement, rather like the 60s, where police were called 'pigs' and anyone who was rich was not to be trusted, definitely 'establishment' and there were the 'anti-establishment' hippies.

The 'occupy' movement has/had a vague, vacuous goal of an idea in someone's mind and it its/was different for any person. In my mind , they were demonstrating (if that's what you could call it), against the wrong entity.

Their beef was that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. SO, THEY PICK WALL STREET AS A TARGET? Wall street only does what Congress allows. They had a legit beef (in their minds) that the wealthy were not paying their fair share in taxes. So, WHY DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE WEALTHY? Demonstrate against the folks who make it legal for them TO ESCAPE TAX CONSEQUENCES if that was their beef.

They ought to have been demonstrating on the Capitol steps, with their eyes set on the very legislature that ALLOWS tax-dodging, and should have brought to Congressional attention that Americans are wise to them.

They ought to demonstrate against the very administration that allowed the poster child oF paying ZERO Dollars in federal taxes for 2 years (GE) and then 'honored' him with a position as a JOBS CZAR! Hooey.

The 'occupy' movement misplaced its efforts when it wanted to raise awareness of issues. What better place that to demonstrate and pedal their displeasure than Washington, DC? Instead, they chose WALL STREET?.

"The Occupy Wall Street Movement sees government using a blind eye allowing very powerful and wealthy people to buy and dictate the legislation of the government to their advantage." Is it the Mitt Romney's and Bush's that have the money and the power to buy and dictate legislation?

No, it's the George Soros, The Nathan Rosthchilds, the people who'd like to take over the WBS who have that money and power. Interestingly enough, they're Democrat, liberals.

Who's bone-headed move was it to have the 'occupiers' destroy property as you'd see in the mob mentality that occurred in the riots of '68 at the DNC?

That bears on criminal prosecution, for not everyone on that vacuous and EVIL Wall Street is a wealthy, trading tycoon. There are Moms and Dads, storefronts which were left in all sorts of disarray and these thugs-I use the term, because that's what people who crap on other's property's and resist arrest are called.

No someone nigher up in the OWS movement ought to have had the intelligence to know that OWS demonstrating against WS would accomplish nothing, and that a demonstration against DC would have been the better option. but, either they chose NOT to use that intelligence for reasons I can only imagine, that I'll not go into here.

I'll hop down in your post to something that really appalls me and has my concern and that is the thought that conservatives could not bring themselves to vote for President Obama because he is a black man.

Another HOOEY! "The idea of equal rights for black men then, and a black man as President of the United States now." That conservatives are 'closet racists' is absurd.

Republicans (a term not to be used interchangeably with conservatives) are about politics and conservatism is an ideology, just like liberals are an ideology and Democrats are their (often) political party.

That's only addressing part of your post, but it's time to move on!


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

Mr. Ewall:

What exactly are you telling me?

That interdependence and working together is out of the question?

I spent 17 years in prison. I have paid for my crime. I am supposed to be given a second chance. But, I am treated like a living pariah in our society. I am caught up in a series of laws that are a clear cut example of modern Social Darwinism at it's worst.

I am treated like a threat to society even though I finally took it upon myself to grow up. I am not supposed to be able to control myself or my behavior, but I do.

I don't live on the government. I work 7 days a week as an independent contractor for the local newspaper. I get paid enough to keep my truck on the road, but not enough to actually live on. I now have no health insurance because it finally ran out.

I am caught in an effort to reinvent myself, because I can no longer depend on my physical abilities to support me.

I can't get a decent job because no one wants to hire me. I am even being told that I should use a pseudonym, because my views are not popular today.

I can understand that people would be fearful of me. But, I have worked very hard to be less of a narcissist and more self -deprecating.

The Bible says you should love your neighbor as you love yourself. I have learned that if you don't love yourself, you can't possibly love your neighbor.

I understand that people have the right to be leery of me, but my behavior speaks for itself.

I watch as some of the most aggressive predators in our society have gone unpunished, because they can buy the political system to keep them from accountability. They can trash the economy, and pay no consequences.

The few that dictate to the many. A so-called free market, sounds a lot more like Soviet Socialism.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

teamrn:

Please make an effort to explain to me why Strom Thurmond, a Southern Democrat became a Republican and thousands of Southern Democrats along with him. To include my father.

Then try to explain to me why the Tea Party didn't exist until there was a Black man in the White House.

Please explain to me why Nixon became so upset with Daniel Ellsberg, that he would trash his credibility, and therefore his own Presidency. By calling the peace movement during Vietnam a Communist conspiracy. Why he took it upon himself to invade the privacy of Americans in the name of national security as a result.

Please explain to me where the news media of the day, got those images of Black people in Alabama being sprayed by police with fire hoses.

Please explain to me, why four kids were killed on the grounds of Kent State.

Please explain to me why Mayor Daly took it upon himself to attack the demonstrators at the Democratic National Convention in 1968, when everybody knows who would have won both both the convention and eventually the White House. Who had the most to gain from Robert Kennedy's death?

My point was focused on Social Darwinism. The same disease that allowed Hitler to believe he had the right to kill six million Jews. The same disease that America used to destroy the buffalo in an effort to destroy the Native American way of life, because they were considered too inferior to recognize the advantages of progress.

Even the United States Supreme Court has weighed in on Eugenics.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

Addendum:

And just for the sake of all things constitutional:

A standing army under the Constitution is unconstitutional.

What do we need a standing army for when we can destroy an entire country in less than an hour!!!


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

So, you don't think race is an issue in the Tea Party.

Look at attitudes associated with the Zimmerman Case and tell me what you see.

As for my outburst.

It frustrates me when people assume that they understand me better than I understand myself.

If we as Americans can't find common ground to speak on, then we are doomed to let those with the money and the power legislate this country from afar. It's called "Taxation without Representation". It is not the Congress who has failed us, it is we who have failed Congress. Our inability to agree on anything, to find some common ground to work with is the problem.

You don't like my opinion, but you have yet to argue on ground that can even challenge my opinion. The fundamental difference between us, is that I pay careful attention to both sides of the argument, and then I speak. I do my research on both sides of the question, and then I talk.

Lastly, my first real memory of a bigger world, was seeing the Kennedy inauguration in 1961. Then the reality of a bigger world in 1963. I remember watching Oswald get shot on live tv.

I want the very most powerful wealthy people in this country to show me, that they respect the advantages this country has brought them in pursuit of their success. That their success should not come at the expense of anybody let alone the poor. That they are capable of understanding that their wealth is as much of a government entitlement as a Social Security. Or at the very least let Social Security get the same respect that wealth demands for itself.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Ready for a book? Ok, then let's get going! This is my third time trying to answer your post and I've been interrupted each time. Sorry not to have gotten back to you sooner.

"Look at attitudes associated with the Zimmerman Case and tell me what you see." What are the attitudes you speak of? I see that a young man died in a scuffle-we we'll never know-unless people start listening to George Zimmerman; but why should they start now?

If that man lives another 5 years I'll be surprised; the justice system determined one fate and decided he should live, but Mr. Sharpton has decided that he has more authority than the Aumerican jurisprudence system? And he calls himself a man of God? He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Black man being killed by another man of color. And yet, when 1100+ black men kill more black men in Chicago, not a word is heard.

Why haven't Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson weighed in on the CHicago killings (Jesse Jackson's and Barack Obama's back yard) but chose Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

Why did Trayvon Martin become the 'poster child' for what could have been a racially movitated crime, but we have no evidence of the fact? There were over 1100 deaths by men of color by other men of color in Chicago this past year. What is it that makes the Trayvon Martin 'case' more newsworthy? What makes him the poster boy for hate crime?

That is what I see why the Zimmerman/Martin case. Sure, I know when the media tries to whip up a frenzy and I see other people bobbing for this blood like apples.

Who is taking it personally when really the case doesn't matter more than a hill of beans. What matters more is the result of the case and the lessons we learn from it. Which leads directtly to my next thought.

The more important issue seems to me that we ought to prioritize and expend our energies deciding how we're going to deal with gun violence problems- or not. Do something about that, but don't spend energy printing magazines that portray an empty hoodie. THAT, is stereotyping that this country doesn't need.

You mentioned in an earlier post, why the Tea Party didn't exist until there was a black man in the WH. I can't believe I'm dignifying that comment with a response, but the only response I see is a coincidental response.

The TP is a movement, and movements don't come to power/fruition overnight. Barack Obama didn't arrive at the WH overnight, He was years in the making as was the TP. Little grass roots organizations erupting until they all joined hands.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what these things about Nixon, Strom Thurmond, Kent State and Mayor Daley at the '68 DNC have to do with the price of tea in China. And what of the buffalo? Unless you're taking a stab at social Darwinism or like a patient of mine, always spoke of Jim Marrs and other conspiracy theorists and theories. Thee's room for thought there, but not in this post.

Do you really think that the TP exists because of opposition to blacks? They have much better things to do than to persecute blacks. I definitely heard a thud as that major league chip hit the floor.

"What do we need a standing army for when we can destroy an entire country in less than an hour!!!" It's the ARMY, the MILITARY that can DESTROY THAT COUNTRY. I guess I'm obtuse but what do you think destroyed this country in less than an hour.

I imagine we're of the same age when you speak of a bigger world, events I remember too clearly.

When you speak about the wealthy to show you that they respect you, etc, do you want to bring them to their knees and the country with it-all to get your needs of being showed a little respect? Come now, do you really want to bring the country down-just to get your needs met. That is selfishness at it's most base level.

You mention that the wealthy are more than capable of understanding that their wealth comes from a government that has allowed to prosper. Do you really want a government so powerful, so big that it picks who prospers and who doesn't? While were at telling what WE want, I want a government that if my recent business attempts succeed, will allow me to invest the money I may make and not take all my money; a government that recognizes and RESPECTS success.

I like a discussion of facts, in Zimmerman/Martin case, as discussion of FACTS surrounding the case and conclusions that a reasonable person would draw. Quite frankly, maybe I'm so obtuse, but I don't see why Trayvon Martin entered this discussion; whatever this discussion is about.

Oh, it should surround opinions that people have about why the rich should or shouldn't pay more in taxes. Why then, are we talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and taxation w/out representation and everything BUT the rich paying-or not-more in taxes.

I don't assume and NEVER did assume that I know you better than you know and understand yourself. There is a conspiracy theory written all around here and I'm not taking part.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

Fannymae and Freddymac were designed to help minorities obtain housing. This article should give you some idea about why I feel the way I do.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/19/inam.housing....

I don't know that race is the specific issue at hand, but the manipulation of these bundled mortgages bought and sold as investments thanks to the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act, goes to the heart of why I think the rich should have as high a stake in this process of taxation as the rest of us do. If the corporations in this country faced the kind of scrutiny as was seen in the Zimmerman case, then maybe there would be more accountability focused on those who engineered the latest in a long line of economic disasters.

I think policies of major tax cuts and aggressive spending is designed to cripple the government. The label of "liberal" or "socialism" attached to this goal, designed to manipulate the general public into fighting each other, while some very powerful and wealthy people exploit the riches of the United States for all it's worth.

I think Congress is bought and sold by the highest bidder. I think both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street know this, but can't find any common ground to operate as a unifying force. Simply because prejudices are too deeply ingrained for common ground to be achieved.

The failure to find common ground is not on the the power brokers, that spend billions of dollars to control the legislative process. The failure is on us, The American People for standing by and not being more aggressively involved in our political process. For spending our times aggressively at odds with each other, because corporations control what we see and what we hear.

I for one, would like to see an in depth discussion about how major corporations have used the 14th Amendment to give the corporation individual rights along with human individuals. Taking away corporate person hood would go a long way toward leveling the playing field between individuals and the power brokers who now control Congress in Washington.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

Arthur Bundy

It is the battle of the rich guys on both sides only because of CONTOL of Government and our lives.The only power that we the people need to exercise is voting for the right candidates. .


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

" the rich should have as high a stake in this process of taxation as the rest of us do. " Arthur, I agree that the rich should have as high a stake as the rest of us do. But, they shouldn't have a HIGHER stake, just because they're rich.

Let's say you take home $60,000 a year and tax law places you in the 45$ tax bracket. Just because Steven Spielberg brings home quite a bit more than $60,000, I'm not convinced that He should be paying MORE than our man who makes $60,000.

After all, the rich (Mr. Spielberg included)


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Arthur Bundy- I’ve been reading the posts going back about 5 days and wanted to comment on some of the issues you raised.

You said: “I watch as some of the most aggressive predators in our society have gone unpunished, because they can buy the political system to keep them from accountability. They can trash the economy, and pay no consequences.”

Who are these aggressive predators and what proof do you have that they control the political system? Ross Perot and Mitt Romney had more money that any presidential candidates than I can think of, but they both lost. Or do you think the Koch brothers and Warren Buffett are staging their differences to play both ends against the middle?

I think you may be overestimating how clever these people really are. I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories because they take a lot of cooperation between people of vary different interests.

May I suggest to you that these “aggressive predators” you speak of are in government and not in the private sector as you suppose. Warren Buffett and the Koch brothers have less direct control over the lives of private citizens than does a low level public official and far less control over public policy. The average member of Congress controls about 5 billion in spending annually; this typically exceeds what these billionaires could possibly spend. So who are the greedy ones, the power hungry politicians or these billionaires?

Consider this; private citizens have a choice as to whether they will buy products produced by companies owned by these uber rich billionaires or to work for them. On the other hand we have little say as to how politicians spend our tax money on or whether to pay our taxes. Think of the trillions of dollars these government agencies are costing us because of unfunded mandates and regulations. Our legislature doesn’t even have the power to decide how this money is spent because they’ve ceded their legislative authority to them.

You said: “I for one, would like to see an in depth discussion about how major corporations have used the 14th Amendment to give the corporation individual rights along with human individuals.”

The real issue in “Citizens United v. FEC” is the First amendment. Here’s a quote from my Campaign finance hub:

“McCain-Feingold officially known as The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, violated free speech rights by prohibiting corporations and unions from spending to get out a political message. They contended that parts of McCain-Feingold had a “chilling” effect on freedom of speech and that the First Amendment protects free speech regardless of who speaks, whether an individual or a group of individuals making up a corporation. Justice Kennedy contended that you can’t distinguish a corporation from the media since the media is also a corporation therefore McCain- Feingold could logically restrict all media including the press.”

For a more thorough explanation of this issue you’re welcome to read my hub: http://hubpages.com/politics/Campaign-Finance-Refo...


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

SHOULD THE RICH PAY MORE IN TAXES is the question and I've not heard one reason WHY. I've head plenty of reasons for their paying more, but I've no heard one clear, cogent reason WHY. A good YES THEY SHOULD AND THIS IS WHY. Please explain in clear English, with a backup reason or two, why this thought (having the rich pay more in taxes) is a good thing for the country, for you and for me, for our grandchildren and grandchildren's hears.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Team – The reason is because it empowers politicians to buy votes and remain in office. Is that plain enough!


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

My life has been a little hectic lately. I am running behind on my correspondence.

This article and the comments passed along are some of the most interesting and challenging I have faced. Please give me a day or two to catch up.

Thank you all.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

For who ever is interested, I found an article in "The Hoover Foundation" site that speaks about the foundation of the Constitution as it pertains to morals. I like it because it answers many" big picture" questions for me as to the nature of the moral basis of society including the government and even how it relates to tax policy.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/a...


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

wba108@yahoo.com:

I consider Bill Moyers one of the last great journalists of our time. If you will look up the Koch Brothers and the American Legislative Education Council on his website, you will get a sense of what I think and why.

The ALEC in my view is the rebirth of the John Birch Society. Social prejudice at it's worst. Social Darwinism at it's most unfortunate.

With the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act the Koch Brothers made millions on manipulating oil speculation.

They have supplied Norquist with millions to pursue low taxes.

They are behind fracking.

Or more to the point, Reagan tax cuts and extreme spending has basically bankrupted state and federal governments for the purpose of limiting the governments ability to enforce the law.

It's not a conspiracy. It's a very serious reality.

Why did Rush Limbaugh get a raise after Hillary Clinton was finished as a Presidential contender in 2008. Because the Republicans did not think America was ready to elect a Black man President.

Carl Rove election night 2012 speaks volumes about the thought process and the attitudes involved. His denial over the reality of his failure was heart felt.

Regardless of why the President was successful, the stated attitude is focused on "Socialism" when in reality it is Social Darwinism.

And as for your thoughts associated with morality in a free society...Once again Social Darwinism.

Question... how many gay people are Christians? How moral is it to challenge their desire to believe in God?

A free society has the right to choose what they believe in and why. A free society has the right to disagree, but does not have the right to dictate reality to anyone. And more to the point, to use God as an excuse to dictate what and how people in a free society should live is a dictatorship.

You are not going to face my maker with me on my judgement day. As such, I have made my mistakes, I have made my choices, and I will face God alone. Everybody in this country has that same right, and nobody has the right to dictate for them what is or isn't moral.

What you seem willing to do is avoid the very nature of the Age of Enlightenment, of which our founding fathers were a fundamental part. The power exerted by the Church was of great concern during the development of the Constitution. It was the willingness of the Church to exert their prejudices as a question of morality that was being challenged. An attitude that has not changed.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

Addendum:

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”

― Thomas Jefferson


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon- " It is the battle of the rich guys on both sides only because of CONTROL of Government and our lives.The only power that we the people need to exercise is voting for the right candidates."

I think this is a terrific insight, if it weren't for the government handing out a trillion dollars annually in subsidies,privileges and perks to the private sector, these corporate "rich guys" wouldn't bother trying to buy off the government, for their fair share of the loot.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

WBS, taking that to what I think is it's logical conclusion, the government wouldn't be able to hand out 1 trillion $ annually: if American citizens (and I don't mean a select few: I MEAN ALL!) became involved in the electoral process and learning about current events.

The involvement would become a way of life, something that we all did, not because it was our civic duty to become involved, but because THAT'S THE WAY IT IS, a social more.

I'm not really sure that the corporate rich guys have it as their GOAL-'to buy off their government for their fair share of the loot.' I thin they see that spending oodles of money makes THEIR lives easier, so they donate obscene amounts and THE DONATION is what makes their lives easier. I don't think they get out of bed each morning with the burning desire to buy off the government. They take advantage the subsieies, etc, because-THEY'RE AVAILABLE and the rich , savvy businessman see and opening and makes it bigger.That is capitalism

If US cititizens don't like that part of capitalism, GET INVOLVED AND vote the bums out who write the laws who make it possible for that unbridled capitalism to take advantage of loopholes which allow for the rich to grab their 'share of the loot'. BUT DON'T STIFLE CAPITALISM IN THE PROCESS.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Team- I’m sure the majority corporate of rich guys aren’t looking for handouts from the government (unless their name is Warren Buffett) but the fact that our government has injected itself into the private sector, changes the dynamics of the market. Companies now have an incentive to try to buy off the government (and why shouldn’t they) because if they don’t and their competitor does, they may be out of business.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Arthur Bundy-

This post is a response to your post made almost 2 weeks ago.

“With the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act the Koch Brothers made millions on manipulating oil speculation.”

Koch industries are relativity minor players in the oil futures trading industry, if compared to say Goldman-Sachs. If anything, Goldman-Sachs should be in the spotlight, only they happen to be large donors to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

To demonstrate how large and competitive the oil industry is, Exxon mobile is only ranks 14th among those in the oil business; Koch industries are hardly in a position to manipulate anything.

“They (The Koch brothers) have supplied (Grover) Norquist with millions to pursue low taxes.”

Given the lefts near complete dominance in academia and the media, that you would consider the media influence of the Koch brothers a major threat seems incredible. And it’s hard to understand why you consider it a scandal that the Koch brothers would exercise their freedom of speech by contributing to their favored political cause.

You brought up many other issues that I may try to address in the next post.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

On the list of the wealthiest people in the world for 2013...number 6 twice or number 6 and 7 respectively considering what specific list you use...are the Koch Brothers.

As for who dominates media...corporations own dominate and control media, all media.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Nice factoid, Arthur. But, with all due respect, what does this have to do with the rich paying more in taxes?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

AN INTERESTING LINK?

9/2/12

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts

http://www.sott.net/article/250592-Audit-of-the-Fe... Obama and Geither KNOWS TRANSPARENCY


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Arthur- While it’s true that corporations own the media, it’s also true that that those employed in the media industry are overwhelmingly liberal. Major research findings over many years have confirmed this to be true. It’s also a fact that the majority of media personnel don’t take their orders from top corporate executives. So even if the executives were conservative it wouldn’t affect the way the news is reported.

Studies have also confirmed a strong liberal bias in the way news stories are presented. Gallop polls found that the general population sees the media as too liberal by a margin of 3 to 1. Numerous high profile journalists have freely admitted to a liberal media bias.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Jon- If all this is true about the FED, I guess Ron Paul deserves a lot of credit. If its confirmed that our government is giving or loaning trillions to corporations and foreign banks, maybe the public will finally wake up and take our country back from these government crooks!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

wba108@yahoo.com

The mainstream media is biased so much to the left, it is evident that the reporting is distorted against the right in every report.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 3 years ago from Chicago

Left leaning media, or functions of central bank or existence of NWO aside, the central question remains, SHOULD THE RICH PAY MORE IN TAXES? I take my leave, cause we're not answering that. Everything but!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

teamrn

Yes, they should pay more and they do.

Let's not forget 4 years ago Wake up America,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/paygo_description/

Barak Obama Campaign Promises

.http://hubpages.com/politics/barakobamacampaignpro...

7/21/11

Senator Coburn reports $9 TRILLION of waste in government agencies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs sequestration REALLY

2/25/13 Sequester - The Three Things you need to know

http://www.gop.gov/sequester/

President Obama Proposed the Sequester

Senator questions $18B for job training WASTE

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/17/senator...

9/2/12

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts

http://www.sott.net/article/250592-Audit-of-the-Fe... Obama and Geither KNOWS

Government projects to make $50B in student loan profit

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/06/16/us-g...

Stimulus Spending Was Wasted Money $825 BILLION

http://davesworld.hubpages.com/hub/Stimulus-Spendi...

GOVERNMENT WASTE, the past 5 years, the Social Security Trust fund has paid $400 billion to dead federal employees FEDERAL EMPLOYEES BEHIND ON TAXES

As of Sept,2011, 107,658 federal employees owed $1.01 billion federal taxes

2012 $3.5 billion

IRS COLLECTIONS?4/29/13

Inspector General finds $ 13.6 billion in IRS improper payments , 21 to 25%, to low- income taxpayers through its Earned Income Tax Credit Program in fiscal 2012. In 2011 , 21 to 26 % were improper

THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.waste and wasteful spending.The administration is unable to do the job even while controlling 2/3s of the government since 2007.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

This makes my point better than I can make it myself.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos

Don't Mess with Taxes

Episode #18138

The United States tax code hasn't been addressed in any significant way since the days when Boy George could guest star on "The A-Team." (03:42)

Tags: taxes, government, Boy George, 80s, business, economy, poop & pee, laws, John Oliver, holidays, supernatural

Aired: 08/06/13Viewed: 26,311

Full Episode AvailableAugust 6, 2013 - Liam Hemsworth

1. I showed a graph that spelled out how corporations are having some of their greatest profits of all time while the American Wager earner is earning the lowest wages at the same time.

Source: eclectablog Progressive News and Commentary December 4, 2012.

http://www.eclectablog.com

A Comparison of Corporate Profits and Wages Over the Last 70 Years

These two websites make it clear. Since 1986, with the last of the Great Reagan Tax reform actions has come the ability of Corporations to bankrupt local, state, and federal budgets. Taking from them what they can use to profit from, and slowly preventing the government from being able to do it's job. Which is to maintain and protect the American People from corporate abuses. It goes back to Teddy Roosevelt and trust busting.

2. The idea that during the Watergate era, only 3% of Congress as a whole would move on to corporate lobbies and now that figure is 42% for house members and 50% for senators, should tell you who controls both liberal and conservative media and why. To keep average Americans divided against each other, and keep corporate America out of the reach of Constitutional amendments that would force them to clean up their act.

3. The latest Supreme Court decision which has struck down some of the most important provisions of the laws protecting against disenfranchisement should scare you too. That discussion can be found in another episode of the Daily Show in the last couple of days.

4. Last of all the idea that Congress would allow itself to attach secrecy to tax negotiations to protect their jobs, is not only unconstitutional, it's un-American. This should tell you who holds the purse-strings in Washington.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY Author

Arthur-

It doesn’t seem like we agree on much!

You said-

“With the last of the Great Reagan Tax reform actions has come the ability of Corporations to bankrupt local, state, and federal budgets.”

Isn't this turning logic on its head? Bankruptcy is a result of not being able to live within your means. Is it really your position that corporations are responsible for the government’s budget? Government at all levels are spending record amounts of money, bankruptcy is the result of a spending problem not a revenue problem.

“The idea that during the Watergate era, only 3% of Congress as a whole would move on to corporate lobbies and now that figure is 42% for house members and 50% for senators, should tell you who controls both liberal and conservative media and why. To keep average Americans divided against each other, and keep corporate America out of the reach of Constitutional amendments that would force them to clean up their act.”

Did you mean to say who controls government or who controls the media? The fact that members of Congress move on to corporate lobbies doesn’t mean the corporations control the media or the government.

The problem of the collusion of government and corporations are primarily the result of government intervention in the private sector. While it is true that corporations can and are often a corrupting influence to government, it’s also true that government has a lot more real power than corporations.

The idea of a cabal of elite corporate bigwigs controlling America, I believe is misguided. Corporate power is divided up into millions of shareholders. They can only exist by pleasing the public. If you go back even 10 years you’ll notice that top corporations in America have changed? The interests of America’s corporations vary a lot, what is an advantage to one corporation is a detriment to another. The corporate contributions to political causes are largely defensive in nature. In other words, their hoping the government won’t destroy their business.


Arthur Bundy profile image

Arthur Bundy 3 years ago from Colorado Springs

wba108@yahoo.com

The tax cuts that came during the Reagan White House were coupled with some of the most aggressive spending since the FDR Administration. The fundamental difference between the two administrations, is that FDR spent but taxed heavily to compensate for the spending. The issues at the time warranted the spending.

The reality is that New Deal policies had established an effective balance between corporations and wage earners to the point that when Reagan took office the Middle Class was the most powerful majority of the population in all of history.

The issue for me is that Reagan and both Bush Administrations spent aggressively, but didn't couple that spending with appropriate taxes to compensate. While this spending spree effectively put the Soviet Union out of business it has also stripped the federal government of the means to pay it's own bills. With the exception of course of those corporations who have deeply entrenched themselves into the military. In the form of privatizing major portions of the logistical support structure of the Military. Eisenhower's Military-Industrial-Complex. I was raised a military brat. I was born during the Eisenhower Administration. I have witnessed the changes.

Corporate America through aggressive lobby efforts has more control over political and legislative policy now than it ever has before.

Watergate was the last time the 4th estate had the ability to operate as an independent information service to the people. Reagan policy changed all that. By the time Iran-Contra becomes a news story, Oliver North is an American Hero and the whole episode is nothing but a dog and pony show designed to entertain. The guy who brought the story to the country, was aggressively ridiculed by corporate media, and eventually committed suicide.

It is my belief that pardoning Nixon whether by design or not, kept the American People from learning the truth about what was behind the events that lead up his resignation.


wilderness profile image

wilderness 14 months ago from Boise, Idaho

No, it's not "fair" for some to pay more, regardless of their wealth.

But it IS necessary. The very poor can pay nothing and still survive. And even if the percentage rates were set all the same, those in the middle could not reasonably survive, either. Not only do the rich have to pay more, they must pay a higher percentage of their income just to maintain the country.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 14 months ago from usa

wilderness

Why are some people rich? Why are some poor ? Some where between the two is the middle class, so-called.

6/14/15 The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the POOR in America http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/14/the-lie-obama-ke...

8/13/10 USA Today federal workers earning double their private counterparts

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/incom...

3/3/15 Proof that rich pay more than their fair share of taxes http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/proof-that-rich-... 1/02/14

Last but not least is the Government, who is and who is the fourth party involved in the above ( regulation and taxation) 7/21/11 Senator Coburn exposes $9 Trillion WASTE in Gov agencies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVJ2gqqKWs 2010 Pa y Go law http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-touts-new-paygo-...

I do concede there is more to the story.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working