Two pro-Lamont prospectives: the first being from John Nichols of The Nation‘s Online Beat blog (which is a really nice-looking blog) and another from conservative talk show host and former Congressman Joe Scarborough.
Both argue that the Lamont win will energize Democrats who want to be hardcore, antiwar, “progressive” Democrats. Indeed, they’re almost certainly right. However, there aren’t enough “real” Democrats to win an election – even in a bastion of blue-blood liberalism like Connecticut. Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals by a significant margin in this country. The message of the “progressive” movement right now boils down to “we hate George W. Bush” followed by a mishmash of half-baked leftist policy ideals. It isn’t a coherent philosophy of governance, and its primary driver right now is sheer unadulterated hatred for the personage of George W. Bush.
If one were a hardcore Democratic partisan, yesterday’s results were something to cheer about. Ultimately, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. The utter lack of civility coming from the netroots is pure poltical poison. Democrats love to crow about how “the other side does it too”, but the reality is that when an undecided voter sees something like this, they don’t think very highly of the person using such unnecessarily vitriolic rhetoric.
I’ll be frank, it’s the civility, stupid. The netroots behave like a bunch of arrogant spoiled children. It’s not enough that they have to oppose the policies of their political opponents, it’s that their political opponents must be the embodiment of all that is evil. It’s not enough to disagree, they have to destroy. What Clinton called the “politics of personal destruction” is now the modus operandi of the Democratic Party. Look at rhetoric of Kos himself – the new puppetmaster of the Democratic Party – everyone who opposes his “progressive” agenda is routinely treated as traitors to some holy cause.
Politics is ultimately the art of compromise. Fanatics don’t last long in the political arena, not in democratic societies. Joe Lieberman’s great sin is that he tried to compromise – if that’s what being a “real” Democrat means, then the Democratic Party will never be successful over the long term.
Democrats are free to be “real” Democrats however they choose to define themselves. However, when they take honorable men like Joe Lieberman and throw them under a bus for the crime of not being ravingly partisan enough, they’re only shooting themselves in the foot.
You are dead wrong. Wanting a change of direction from Bush’s failed Iraq policy only seems extreme to the ultra-neo-conservatives. You can call the people who voted in the primary extreme, but turnout was 40%. And then you have to forget about the Michigan 7th CD, where the same thing happened in the GOP primary. I somehow think that there, you would be talking about the GOP turning to its roots instead of the GOP becoming extremists.
The turnout was too big in this one to blame it on the netroots. This was more than a bunch of bloggers whining, this was a showing to candidates everywhere that people are fed up with this Administration and the people that are enabling its failed and destructive policies. These “extremists” are the same ones that are going to send a handful of Northeast GOPers packing in November. Who are you going to blame then?
Everyone wants a change of direction. However, the change of direction we need is one in which we work to stabilize Iraq, rather than let it degenerate into Afghanistan Part III.
40% of registered Democrats, many of whom were extremely partisan Democrats. I wouldn’t call a primary with 40% partisan Republican turnout representative of the electorate either.
Except the level of vitriol wasn’t nearly what it was in Connecticut – and the issue in that election wasn’t that it’s unacceptable for a Republican to put country abover party, as it was for Lieberman.
Not every primary challenge is driven by extremism.
Since it’s obviously unacceptable for anyone to support the war and be a Democrat, why aren’t you calling on Stephanie Hersth to step aside? What of Senator Johnson? Both of them have more conservative voting records then Senator Lieberman did. Both of them have the same position on the war than Senator Lieberman does.
Let the purging begin!
Right. Among the most enthusiastic Democratic primary voters in a solid blue state, the anti-war candidate gets only 51.8% of the vote. Not impressive.
“Since it’s obviously unacceptable for anyone to support the war and be a Democrat, why aren’t you calling on Stephanie Hersth to step aside? What of Senator Johnson? Both of them have more conservative voting records then Senator Lieberman did. Both of them have the same position on the war than Senator Lieberman does.”
I think the main difference is that neither is a national figure; Herseth is a young rookie, and while Johnson’s had some high committee appointments, he’s never been seen as a leadership figure in the same way as Lieberman. If Lieberman had maintained a low profile (like Johnson) and kept away from media attention, he may not have had a primary challenge. He left himself open.
Also, I’d imagine that there is a great deal of political pragmatism at work here. Connecticut is seen as a liberal state, whereas South Dakota is not (obviously)- Johnson and Herseth are as good as they can hope for. Parties attempt to purge politicians in states where they believe they can get someone who can “toe the party line”, while tolerating a lot more dissent in states where compromise is required (see New York or California for GOP examples; see the Midwest and Mountain States for Democratic examples). There’s no “purge” going on; just politics as usual.
Nicq, Lieberman would have been if he hadn’t went on Fox News last fall to tell Sean Hannity what treasonous heathens the Democrats are for opposing Bush. If you be a Democratic Senator from Connecticut but talk like a Democratic Senator from Alabama, don’t be surprised when you get called out for it.
Now Lieberman’s writing the next chapter in his megalomaniacal life story by not taking his primary defeat like a man and poking both his party and Connecticut voters in the eye. Classy guy!
Jay:
“and the issue in that election wasn’t that it’s unacceptable for a Republican to put country abover party, as it was for Lieberman.”
Only in your mindlessly partisan world where the only way of “putting country over party” is by refusing to criticize George Bush. Sixty percent of Americans don’t support George Bush. If you happen to be a Democratic Senator in a deeply blue state running for election, and not only support Bush but accuse members of your party of undermining America by not supporting Bush, you’re digging your own political grave. Whatever the spin by the goofball right, the story is as simple as that.
“I’ll be frank, it’s the civility, stupid.”
Lectures on civility from the party of Karl Rove. Am I the only one who sees the irony here. Bob Ney’s hand-picked would-be successor for the OH-18 seat ran for the Ohio Legislature two years ago and accused her Democratic opponent, former Lebanon hostage Terry Anderson, of being a terrorist sympathizer, using a photo of Anderson standing next to his former Hezbollah captor to try to validate that talking point. Good thing we got you pious Republicans as towering role models of civility.
Except Lieberman has never “refused to criticize George Bush” – he has where it is appropriate.
The difference between Lieberman and the other Democrats is that Lieberman doesn’t want us to lose in Iraq. He doesn’t want Iraq to fall into the hands of right-wing paramilitary death squads. He doesn’t want another Afghanistan.
But I guess that makes him an apostate in the eyes of the Democrats…
Seriously. I think you’ve heard the Karl Rove talking points that you believe the only two options in the entire world are to do exactly what Bush says or pull out all American troops immediately. That’s not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that:
1.) George Bush misled this country into war and has blundered and failed to provide adequate leadership at every possible step of this war. People that support that policy are going to find themselves in difficult election battles and I’m glad the Democrats of Connecticut had enough common sense to send Joe Lieberman a message.
2.) You keep calling the people that voted for Lamont extremists. I’m not sure there are 150,000 extremists in Connecticut, but you’re free to think of Connecticut as a hotbed of radicalism.
Also, in Michigan 7th, the Club for Growth and National Right to Life spent millions to oust a moderate that they repeatedly called a liberal and a moderate. If the Democrats shot themselves in the foot with Lieberman, then surely the GOP did the same with Schwarz.
Finally, you really should take the time to listen to what the progressives have to say. When you quit drinking the Kool Aid about how we just hate Bush and nothing else. You’d probably like a lot of it.
“Finally, you really should take the time to listen to what the progressives have to say.”
Yah. Bush misled the country…..blundered and failed…..must change course, timetable for withdrawal, bring the troops home…..send Joe Lieberman a message, etc., etc.
After these last 5 years of crying, whining, and complaining, what exactly is it that progressives have to say that we haven’t heard before, repeated ad nauseum, like since 1972?
Being anti-war, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Lieberman, anti-business, anti-everything is not a policy. It’s a temper tantrum. The “progressives” now present us with ol’ exclusive Country Club Ned, who has no governing experience whatsoever and bankrolled his own campaign, and we’re supposed to be impressed with yet another multi-millionaire trying to buy himself a Senate seat?
Really, what exactly is Ned Lamont going to do for the Great State of Connecticut? For the Democratic Party? For the progressives? I mean, other than to compel the moderates to support the GOP? Where else are they going to go? Al Gore? John Kerry? Hillary Clinton?
I don’t think so. I think you just lost a seat in the Senate and pissed off Joe Lieberman.
Club for Growth activists are insane, unhinged lunatics. They’ve hijacked the Republican Party and seek to purge every moderate from their ranks. And I wouldn’t put violence past them. Had Joe Schwarz won last night’s primary, I’m convinced Club for Growth crazies would have had his family raped and murdered.
For the satire-impaired amongst you, the last post was a snark
Eracus, Lieberman will have limited funding for his independent Senate bid now that he’s playing the cowboy. He’ll have to lurch ferociously to the right between now and November to pick up enough Republicans if he wants to win in a three-way race, and that will only alienate Democrats and independents otherwise planning to vote him. Lamont is far from a political natural and I wouldn’t rule out an embarrassing gaffe between now and November. Minus that, Lamont will be the next Senator from Connecticut.
I wouldn’t underestimate Joe Lieberman any more than I would underestimate the “lunch bucket” Democrats in Connecticut, or the independents and republicans willing to help him.
The choice seems to be either to send a message with Ned and have another feckless million dollar senator, or elect Joe and keep some clout in Connecticut. In either case, in the long run it’s a lose-lose proposition for the Dems and a plus for the GOP.
The USA is not a radical leftist country, but the Democrats are now more clearly the radical Leftist party. They will lose big, just as they did when McGovern was their national Ned Lamont.
For one thing, Lieberman was the wrong guy to take down. There are many in both parties who disagree with him, sometimes adamantly, but the fact is he is a principled liberal worthy of the respect he has earned, or he wouldn’t have been nominated VP just six years ago. From VP to feckless Ned is pretty radical, dontcha think? And for what? Because Lieberman supports the President of the United States facing a maniacal enemy that has already bombed us and is threatening to kill us all? How does the working man in Stamford feel about that these days? Hartford?
And Ned Lamont is the message? Connecticut will get the representation it deserves, but the Dems will never live it down. Dumb, dumb move.
This was not a good move for the Dems. It won’t play in Peoria, especially 2 years from now.
Eracus, two-thirds of Americans disagree with Joe Lieberman’s position on Iraq, or at the very least, are far closer to the position of Lamont. If this had happened in 2004, you might get away with playing the “McGovern card” (although you’ve essentially been playing it non-stop since 1972, losing effectiveness every time). With a supermajority of Americans now opposed to the war in Iraq, it’s almost comical that you guys still talk as if its May 2003 when you first declared “Mission Accomplished” and two-thirds of Americans supported your policy.
I don’t disagree that the netroots picked the wrong battle in taking down Lieberman, but for different reasons than you. The media will obsess about this for weeks and feed the narrative beast of “Democrats divided”. Had Lieberman not been a national figure, this primary would have come and gone quietly, whatever the result. Having played out like it did, the oxygen will be sucked out of the Democrats’ campaign momentum since little will be said about defeating Republicans for weeks.
As for how this will play “in Peoria two years from now”, it won’t. No matter how hard Republicans try to get swing voters to lament fact that 52% of Connecticut Democrats voted against Joe Lieberman in August 2006, their eyes will gloss over every time you try to raise their ire over the issue. The “dangerous symbollism” you envision as a result of a Senator who embraced a foreign policy worldview rejected by two-thirds of Americans being defeated in a primary is laughable, “especially two years from now.”
What the Democrats fail to understand is that being concerned about the future of Iraq is not the same as wanting to pull out and leave Iraq to al-Qaeda.
No matter how much the Democrats try to spin their way past it, their chosen political approach would hand al-Qaeda the greatest victory they have ever had. It would embolden terrorists and prove once and for all that Osama bin Laden is exactly right and that by exploiting our divisions a group of terrorist death squads can bend us over and make us their bitch.
Sorry, but that sure as hell won’t play in Peoria either.
The Democrats lost because of that very fact in 2002. The lost because of it in 2004. And if they continue at this rate, they’ll lose again in 2006 and 2008. Americans don’t like defeatists, and the white flag has replaced the jackass as the symbol of the Democratic Party.
Mark, the oft-repeated “two-thirds of Americans disagree with Joe Lieberman’s position on Iraq” and “a supermajority of Americans now opposed to the war in Iraq” is a liberal canard, it is just a media fabrication based on opinion analysis and speculation to amuse the chattering class. Two-thirds of the American people can’t find Iraq on a map.
Incidentally, you also miss my point about Peoria. It’s not about Ned Lamont’s primary victory. It’s about whether the American people will vote for a party and candidate that will not fight, that indeed, believes nothing is worth fighting for, and which has for the last 5 years offered nothing but seething hatred and different recipes for defeat.
They can’t even stand up against Howard Dean and Daily Kos, so who will they stand up for in Peoria?
“Mark, the oft-repeated “two-thirds of Americans disagree with Joe Lieberman’s position on Iraq†and “a supermajority of Americans now opposed to the war in Iraq†is a liberal canard, it is just a media fabrication based on opinion analysis and speculation to amuse the chattering class.”
Um, yeah. Really, the vast majority of Americans still believe the war was the right thing to do. What percentage of the population do you believe continues to agree with Lieberman’s position on the war in Iraq?
“It’s about whether the American people will vote for a party and candidate that will not fight, that indeed, believes nothing is worth fighting for, and which has for the last 5 years offered nothing but seething hatred and different recipes for defeat.”
All of which has nothing to do with disarming and unarmed Iraqi dictator who had nothing to do with terrorist attacks against America.
I don’t think the percentages have changed that much in 2 years. I think it’s the same percentage that handed the GOP the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in 2004, which in all likelihood has grown given the degree to which Democrats have caved in to the radical Left.
Are you suggesting with Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hussein still in Iraq the world would be more secure from Islamic terrorism were it not for America? Perhaps you can elaborate so that, as a progressive, we can all better understand your point of view.
By the way, Mark, how do you explain the fact that the “pro-Bush” candidate received 48% of the vote in a DEMOCRATIC primary in solid blue Connecticut?
Eracus, so is every single public opinion poll of the last 18 months been a media fabrication? Does everybody have it wrong but you regarding public opinion on Iraq?
“Are you suggesting with Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hussein still in Iraq the world would be more secure from Islamic terrorism were it not for America?”
At least regarding Iraq, I will answer and unequivocal yes. Saddam may have been a monster, but his iron fist prevented anarchy in a nation full of feuding ethnic groups susceptible to a recurring bloody civil strife and aligning with the theocratic jihadists of the Middle East more likely to pick a fight with America. Whatever the merits may have been to dethrone Saddam Hussein from power, making the world more secure from Islamic terrorism was not one of them.
Eracus, the fact that the “pro-Bush candidate in Connecticut” was a three-term incumbent with a national profile and was a former Vice-Presidential candidate who ran against a guy who had less than 1% name recognition four months ago might have something to do with.
I’m pro-single payer universal health care, pro-sustainable energy, pro-economic justice, pro-choice, pro-women, pro-enforcing immigration laws, pro-cracking down on corporate corruption, pro-public financing, pro-living wage, pro-education, pro-unions, pro-progressive taxation and pro-environment. Basically everything conservatives whine about when they say the Democrats are in bed with special interests and then turn around and say we don’t stand for anything. Now, I am also able to criticize Bush. That’s part of what an opposition party does. But to say that because I criticize Bush I do not stand for anything is drinking the Kool-Aid.
Personally, I think that you neo-cons can stop whining about my party until you vote in its primary. Our voters can do what we want. When we want your opinion of how to run our party, we’ll give you a call.
Well, Mark, it appears you have no basis for your point of view other than to deny the evidence in fact. That the Saddam regime was as a matter of record aligned with “theocratic jihadists of the Middle East more likely to pick a fight with America” has been established by its own archives. That you consider Saddam’s mass murder, torture, starvation, and public terror of the Iraqi people a legitimate means to prevent “anarchy” and “recurring bloody civil strife” in Iraq is also completely irrational, considering the regime itself represented one of the “feuding ethnic groups” engaged in genocide in the marshes and northern regions where it gassed the Kurds. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Public opinion polls are big business, Mark. On every level, they are designed to function in support of media, government, and corporate public policy, not against it. The media use them to generate “news”. The government uses them to create popular opinion. The corporations use them to improve public relations. They are the reason BP has a multi-million dollar ad campaign supporting “green technology” while it’s been steadily soaking the ground with crude oil for the last6 months in Prudhoe Bay. Hence, the ad campaign.
As for Lieberman’s 48% of the Democratic vote in a lackluster campaign against an existential Country Club millionaire, would it not be safe to say that Lamont’s anti-Bush, anti-war crusade earned him only slightly less than a 4% margin within the Connecticut Democratic Party’s own primary? Not exactly what the opinion polls predicted, now, was it?
Well, that’s just fine, Seth. While us “neo-cons” can’t vote in your Democratic primaries, we in no way wish to influence how you run your own party. We think you are doing a fine job all by yourselves and frankly can think of no way of how it might be improved.
We just think Marx and Engels were wrong and that most Americans don’t want to live in a communist country.
“That you consider Saddam’s mass murder, torture, starvation, and public terror of the Iraqi people a legitimate means to prevent “anarchy†and “recurring bloody civil strife†in Iraq is also completely irrational,”
Judging by the low-level civil war going on in Baghdad that’s almost certain to escalate, your suggestion that the world was less secure with Iraq under control of Saddam Hussein is irrational. Whether Hussein deserved to be removed from power is not the question you asked or the one I answered. That question had to do with the security of America pre-Saddam and post-Saddam.
“The media use them to generate “newsâ€. The government uses them to create popular opinion.”
Explain to me then how the aggregate of 2004 polls in the week before the Presidential election predicted the outcome of the race, a three-point popular vote victory for Bush, precisely? Your premise that all polls are the products of mainstream media fabrication is a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory unsupported by the collective data.
“As for Lieberman’s 48% of the Democratic vote in a lackluster campaign against an existential Country Club millionaire, would it not be safe to say that Lamont’s anti-Bush, anti-war crusade earned him only slightly less than a 4% margin within the Connecticut Democratic Party’s own primary? Not exactly what the opinion polls predicted, now, was it?”
On the contrary, the final Quinnipiac poll taken on the eve of the CT primary accurately predicted a reversal of momentum in favor of Lieberman. The same poll that predicted a 13-point victory for Lamont a week earlier made a final prediction of Lieberman by six points. They were off by two points, within the margin of error. Again, your conspiracy theory melts at the first peak of sunlight.
“We just think Marx and Engels were wrong and that most Americans don’t want to live in a communist country.”
Eracus, I assume you’ve heard of Godwin’s Law, which states that the debate participant who makes the first gratuitous reference to Hitler or the Nazis instantly loses that debate. I hereby invoke reverse Godwin’s Law on you, irrationally referencing the modern-day Democratic Party (well to the right of where Republican Richard Nixon once stood on meat-and-potatoes domestic issues) as the political equivalent of Karl Marx.
You are free to rationalize whatever beliefs you have, Mark, and to pursue any delusion you wish. But do not expect any rational human being to agree with you absent any evidence to support your point of view.
Even if a billion people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.
Wal Sniwdog? (Which is probably something horribly offensive in Welsh…)
Eracus–which part was communist, the being pro-women or wanting to crack down on corporate corruption?
Just wondering…
To answer your question, Seth, pro-single payer universal health care, pro-sustainable energy, pro-economic justice, pro-choice, pro-women, pro-enforcing immigration laws, pro-cracking down on corporate corruption, pro-public financing, pro-living wage, pro-education, pro-unions, pro-progressive taxation and pro-environment are all basic tenets of the socialist utopia. You will find its successes in every totalitarian system on the planet and its failures in every democratic system wherever it’s been tried.
Ask yourself, in single-payer universal healthcare, who decides who gets the medical care? Do you really want the local surgeon living on a busdriver’s salary to perform corrective heart surgery on your child, assuming you can find one willing to train 16 years to earn the same salary as a busdriver? Afterall, you are pro-economic justice as well. And who will decide this economic justice? You? Or the State? And just what is a living wage? Is it $40,000? $50,000? $150,000? If there was ever any economic justice in this world then we should all be multi-millionaires, right? Afterall, consider what an injustice it would be if we weren’t, considering that some people actually are multi-millionaires. How is that fair? And how shall we distribute this wealth? Who decides? You? Me? Or the State?
I don’t mean to embarrass you but you have clearly never thought critically about the implications of what you are suggesting. It’s all very well and good, for instance, to be “pro-choice” and “pro-women,” of course, but it does not resolve the issue of those who are “pro-women” (who isn’t?) but who are also “pro-life.” What shall we do with them? What shall become of those who do not share your values and beliefs, but who instead value individual rights above the collective rights of the State?
“You will find its successes in every totalitarian system on the planet and its failures in every democratic system wherever it’s been tried.”
Exactly right! Well, except for Sweden….and Norway….oh, and Switzerland…..and Germany…..and France…..oops, forgot Canada……and Denmark…..and Belgium…..and Italy…..and Great Britain. But you’re right. Those “socialist” countries just fail and fail and fail while lawless plutocracies and aristocracies with no priority on human rights continue to thrive.
Likewise with health care. All those civilized nations of the world and their fancy universal health care are just suffering like crazy. Well, except that their infant mortality rates and lifespans are so much shorter than ours here in America. Clearly, a privatized system with double-digit annual health care inflation and an ever-increasing number of individuals not covered by health insurance is infinitely preferable!
“And who will decide this economic justice?”
The lawmakers. You know, the guys who, in the face of increasing poverty, stagnant wages, and rising personal debt among wage-earners, proceed to pass budget-busting tax cut after budget-busting tax cut to further enrich those already making out like bandits from the “deregulated” economy.
Except those countries are failing. France and Germany have level of unemployment not seen since World War II. Paris has as many homeless people as any American city. Sweden’s successes are masked by a hidden unemployment rate that could be up to 20% of the workforce. The Eurozone GDP grows at an anemic rate.
Sooner or later the unsustainable economic system in the EU will collapse. The question is how hard it will fall.
And in fact, countries like Sweden have much lower corporate taxes than the US – which I suppose is a huge sop to the Swedish plutocrats in Big Meatballs…
Which makes the utterly wrong-headed assumption that the federal budget has anything to do with decreasing poverty, increasing wages, or controlling debt. In fact, federal spending tends to make those things worse.
More federal control won’t fix our problems, they’ll just add to them. The only way to decrease poverty, raise wages, and reduce debt is for the state to get the hell out of the way and let people do things like open their own business, invest, and have the ability to make choices in their life. More and more federal control makes that harder, not easier.
No country has ever taxed its way into prosperity.
“No country has ever taxed its way into prosperity.”
Yet every country on the planet that would qualify as liveable imposes tax rates that American conservatives qualify as “oppressive”. At a more localized level, tax rates are often directly proportional to high quality of life in American states as well, with New Jersey and Connecticut on top and Mississippi on the bottom. Pure coincidence, I’m sure.
You are delusional, Mark. Here is how the “lawmakers” deliver healthcare in Britain.
LONDON, April 7, 2006 (UPI) — Britain’s National Health Service is advising general practitioners to refer fewer patients to specialists and to restrict patients’ access to a second opinion.
Local health agencies are to be told to cut general practitioner referral rates to those of the lowest 10 percent nationally, saving the government about $44 million a year, states a plan still in draft form, produced by the London Transition Team and discovered by the Times of London.
Emergency care practitioners should “redirect” 40-70 percent of patients to general practitioners or walk-in clinics, the documents state. Hospitals that treat people who should have been sent to general practitioners will not be paid.
Research has found that one-fifth of specialist-to-specialist referrals are “clinically not necessary,” the report says.
The recommendations are typical of actions being taken nationally to save money by reducing referrals, or, putting it more plainly, treating fewer patients.
But the bureaucracy needed to screen all the referrals will itself cost $2.8 million.
No, they don’t. Hong Kong is densely populated, but more than livable. Ireland’s top income tax rate is much higher than ours, but their top corporate tax rate is close to a third of ours. Luxembourg, the richest country in Europe, has a top income tax rate that’s not all that much greater than ours, and much lower corporate taxes.
Furthermore, there’s very little correlation between tax rates and quality of life – except that those countries that try to impose the highest taxes have very low quality of life rankings.
Except there is no such correlation. Mississippi is on the bottom because it has always been a poor state since it was founded. Likewise, the Northeast has always been a center of industry for the country. Taxation has little to do with it.
In fact, looking at the livability rankings shows no correlation. The least livable states tend to be poor and Southern — which is hardly a surprise. California, one of the most overtaxed states in the country, ranks very low despite having a huge amount of infrastructure and some of the most desirable cities. There’s no strong correlation between high taxes and a good quality of life, despite the fact that the Democrats think that giving more money to Uncle Sam to be wasted and mismanaged will fix all our ails.
“California, one of the most overtaxed states in the country, ranks very low despite having a huge amount of infrastructure and some of the most desirable cities.”
California’s an outlier because of an uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration.
Well, gee whiz, Mark, no one is preventing you and other progressives from paying more in taxes than you owe. By your logic, if all those clamoring for higher taxes just donated an additional amount more than they actually owe, then the quality of life for everyone would be much improved and there’d be an end to poverty.
“No country has ever taxed its way into prosperity.”
Well, no, but some did get there with a large dose of government planning- Germany (pre world wars), Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore come to mind. As does the growth of present-day China. But beyond an initial stimulus, it seems this method has greatly diminishing returns…
“To answer your question, Seth, pro-single payer universal health care, pro-sustainable energy, pro-economic justice, pro-choice, pro-women, pro-enforcing immigration laws, pro-cracking down on corporate corruption, pro-public financing, pro-living wage, pro-education, pro-unions, pro-progressive taxation and pro-environment are all basic tenets of the socialist utopia. You will find its successes in every totalitarian system on the planet and its failures in every democratic system wherever it’s been tried.”
(blink, blink)
Since when are totalitarians for sustainable energy or pro-environment? The soviet bloc was such an ecotopia after all. Women’s rights? Fugghedaboutit. Pro-choice? If you call forced abortions (ala China) pro choice, perhaps, but I don’t think that counts. And Ceaucescu and Franco’s policies in that department weren’t exactly… feminist. Pro-education? Indoctrination, perhaps. Pro-unions… wasn’t a union movement the straw that broke the eastern bloc’s back? Enforcing immigration laws? Last I checked, that was a conservative plank (or at least it is here in New Mexico); and, for the most part, totalitarian states aren’t big on immigration. North Korea isn’t known for its open door policy, anyway. Cracking down on corporate corruption? Last I checked, strong rule of law and fair trade practices were essential parts of a sustainable capitalist system.
Now, on public financing and economic justice, you may have half a point. But please, Eracus, don’t make a fool of yourself.
Eracus, a consistently brain-dead talking point by people who have no comprehension of the premise of COLLECTIVE sacrifice. Just as those who wish to bust unions impose “right-to-work laws” that allow non-duespayers to freeload on the sacrifices of the diminishing ranks of duespayers, your suggestion of “elective taxation” would bestow ruin on public functions because even the most civic-minded taxpayers would lose interest in subsidizing “anti-tax” freeloaders year after year.
You mean as opposed to the way things are now, Mark, where the top 50% of income earners pay 96.54% of all income taxes and the bottom 50% pay 3.46%?? This data covers calendar year 2003, the last year for which such data is available, and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security.
Which 50% are you, Mark?
Eracus, the fact that 96.5% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50% of the population only highlights the maldistribution of financial resources this country accepts. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals who see that the poorest half of the country have incomes so meager that they only foot 3.5% of the nation’s income tax will lament the unconscionable chasm in income distribution. Conservatives will bemoan how the wealthiest 50% wallowing in such affluence that they are eligible for 96.5% of the total income tax burden, are the real oppressed victims of our society.
And even though your income tax burden figures may be correct, it’s still a manipulation. When you factor in regressive sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and payroll taxes, those bottom 50% (including me) that you suggest are society’s real freeloaders, actually pay a higher share of their income in taxes than do the wealthy 50%. I sure wish the lower-income “values voter” Republicans could take a look at discussions like this and see first-hand how the Republicans they vote for never miss an opportunity to urinate on them and demean their increasingly onerous and malcompensated contribution to society.
Wow, Mark, you certainly don’t allow any common sense to get in the way of your ideology. Consequently, you apparently believe things that are simply not true. The year is 2006, not 1930.
It is the lower-income “values voter” that elected Republicans to majorities in the House, Senate, and Executive specifically to cut taxes, which has been accomplished. The result has been statistically full-employment, economic recovery and expansion, and rising incomes across the board to such an extent that now even lower-income earners are exposed more than ever to additional, supplemental taxation under the AMT.
By contrast, it is the Democrats who continually insist taxes be raised on all incomes, not just the “wealthy,” which they maintain is anybody today who earns more than $28,000 a year. The regressive sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and payroll taxes are all the result of your own liberal ideology at the State and local level, Mark, which your party has consistently supported and increased to subsidize education and social programs not to help the poor, but to keep the poor voting Democratic. Why should they provide for themselves when everything they need is provided for them?
Contrary to what you believe, it is the Democratic Party which has shown such contempt for its own traditional constituency that it has consistently nominated and elected fat-cat millionaires to higher office in campaigns funded by other fat-cat millionaires, and which has just thrown one of its most respected and loyal blue-collar senators under the bus — in favor of another fat-cat multi-millionaire with no experience whatsoever in public office. It is this very same party, I might add, your party, that also represented and obtained from its adherents on the US Supreme Court a ruling that allows elected fat-cat millionaires to seize private property for the benefit of other fat-cat millionaires.
Check your premises. It is not the Republican “value voters” who misunderstand the “increasingly onerous and malcompensated contribution to society” under the present system, but people like yourself who, blinded and consumed by a foreign ideology, have no idea what is actually going on in their own party, let alone the United States of America, and clearly not even in their own economic and political back yard.
Instead, you believe things that are simply, and demonstrably, false.
Eracus,
“It is the lower-income “values voter†that elected Republicans to majorities in the House, Senate, and Executive specifically to cut taxes, which has been accomplished.”
Yes it is. My point was that even with people like you denigrating these voters for having earnings so meager that 50% of the population is only qualified to foot 3.5% of the national income tax burden. Perhaps if these “values voters” could engage in discussions like this one and see just how little value people like yourself place on their contribution to society, they’d reconsider their allegiances. All evidence in public opinion polls leading up to the 2006 midterms suggests that they are.
“rising incomes across the board to such an extent that now even lower-income earners are exposed more than ever to additional, supplemental taxation under the AMT.”
Which is it? Are upper income owners being ground into powder financing more than 95% of the collective income tax burden while freeloading working-class Americans get by with less and less as you suggested yesterday….or are lower-income taxpayers experiencing such a bonanza of personal income growth that their share of the tax burden is increasing as you suggest today? It can’t be both.
“The regressive sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and payroll taxes are all the result of your own liberal ideology at the State and local level, Mark,”
Wrong. Both parties never waste the opportunity to raise sales taxes and excise taxes as the most convenient means of revenue-building, often while continuing to cut income taxes on the wealthy. Ditto for disproportionate property tax increases, which are largely supported by Republicans to offset revenue losses from progressive income taxes which have been cut for years to the primary benefit of the wealthy.
“which your party has consistently supported and increased to subsidize education and social programs”
Proudly. It’s when you guys finally start governing AGAINST such things that you’ll be voted out in droves….because education and social programs are wildly popular.
“Contrary to what you believe, it is the Democratic Party which has shown such contempt for its own traditional constituency that it has consistently nominated and elected fat-cat millionaires to higher office in campaigns funded by other fat-cat millionaires”
Uh yeah. One almost has to be wealthy to run for national office….or have worked in a field that gives them a resume sufficient enough to be taken seriously. Steelworkers and waitresses from either party have next to no chance of financing a campaign or being taken seriously by those who vote and finance campaigns. That’s just the way it is.
Mark, you can create strawman arguments and knock them down until the cows come home, but it’s not constructive. No one is “denigrating” anybody’s contribution to society. The plain truth is too many people, like yourself, simply believe things that are not true, of which the content of your posts above prove to be but just one more shining example.
It seems obvious you don’t own any property, don’t pay any income taxes, and feel very strongly that somebody owes you something. Good luck with that.
“It seems obvious you don’t own any property, don’t pay any income taxes, and feel very strongly that somebody owes you something. Good luck with that.”
And you accuse me of “creating strawman”?
Well, no, Mark, I just take you at your word in your posts above that you are among the lower 50% of American taxpayers, who do not own property and do not pay income tax.
“…those bottom 50% (including me)…”
Eracus, a common lie spread by those who hate the working class. Despite the accusation that those with modest incomes “don’t pay taxes”, my 2004 federal income tax burden on $22,000 was nearly $1,500. Last year was a rough year financially and I only earned $11,000. I barely qualified for the EITC and got a whopping $48 check. As usual, the reality doesn’t match up with GOP talking points.
Well, here’s the thing, Mark. Assuming you took the standard deduction and your resulting taxable income was $22,000, you’re the rich, fella. THAT’S the reality. That’s what all the fuss is about.
The GOP insists that your income taxes should be cut. The Democrats say, “No tax cuts for the rich.” But YOU (and I) are the rich, Mark. We don’t deserve a tax cut because our income is too high. We make too much money, we have to give some back.
It doesn’t seem fair, does it? Well, it’s not. It’s ridiculous. That’s why there are elected Republican majorities in the House and Senate and a Republican president in the White House. They are there because more “values voters” voted for their financial survival than for their philosophical or ideological preferences.
Meanwhile, here you are complaining about your tax burden, but you support the party that seeks to raise your taxes. You insist the statistical reality of the disparity created by a progressive tax system is a “common lie spread by those who hate the working class,” when it is the party of the “working class,” your Democratic Party, that created the progressive tax system. Instead, you blame the GOP, which has consistently nominated and elected candidates to cut taxes specifically to help lower and moderate income earners like ourselves get out from under the government boot.
But you and other “working class” myopic Democrat party loyalists fight the rest of us tooth and nail every step of the way. Why? Because believing you’re poor, you want to support the party that allegedly best represents your interests.
But by your own party’s definition, Mark, you are not poor. You’re rich. You made $22,000. You have all these education and social programs administered by tens of thousands of State employees, who make 5 times what you do in salary, healthcare, and retirement benefits, to help the poor with all the subsidized housing, food stamps, low-interest loans, education grants, and employment assistance imaginable. Your fair share of the tax burden required to pay for all this is $1,500. That’s what you voted for.
Don’t blame the GOP.
“Assuming you took the standard deduction and your resulting taxable income was $22,000, you’re the rich, fella. THAT’S the reality.”
I’ve never heard any guidelines for taxable income (at least not since the 1940’s) where $22,000 qualifies anybody as “the rich”. I defy you to back up that outrageous claim with actual references of where the Democrats consider $22K “the rich”.
“We don’t deserve a tax cut because our income is too high. We make too much money, we have to give some back.”
I don’t care about tax cuts. I just don’t want some slimy Republican demagogue telling their country club base that I’m one of the “lucky duckies” who don’t pay income taxes when I had a $1,500 tax burden in 2004 and will pay even more this year.
“They are there because more “values voters†voted for their financial survival than for their philosophical or ideological preferences.”
Their financial survival in a nation whose largest employer is now Wal-Mart? By voting for a party that never misses an opportunity to praise the Wal-Mart business model of declining wages, health care revocation, and domestic deindustrialization? All for a $200 tax cut? I’d say the values voters made a bad bargain.
“Meanwhile, here you are complaining about your tax burden”
Nope. I’m complaining about festering Republican scum who loathe working-class Americans and tell their country club buddies that people like me “don’t pay taxes”.
“But by your own party’s definition, Mark, you are not poor. You’re rich. You made $22,000. You have all these education and social programs administered by tens of thousands of State employees, who make 5 times what you do in salary, healthcare, and retirement benefits, to help the poor with all the subsidized housing, food stamps, low-interest loans, education grants, and employment assistance imaginable. Your fair share of the tax burden required to pay for all this is $1,500. That’s what you voted for.”
Rubbish. I can’t remember seeing a paragrpah chock full of that much misinformation. You should win an award from cramming that much nonsense into one paragraph.
“I’ve never heard any guidelines for taxable income (at least not since the 1940’s) where $22,000 qualifies anybody as “the rich.—
Well, that’s quite a believable statement, Mark. You seem to be completely misinformed. No wonder you’re so confused. You have been lied to over and over again; deceived, really, by your own Democratic Party leadership. You’ve probably never done your own homework and so instead just believe whatever you’ve been told by your party, which has for years now been communicating completely and demonstrably false information.
For instance, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) releases new Federal Poverty Guidelines every year, usually in February or March. In 2005, a single taxpayer earning $22,000 was $12,430 above the poverty threshold. The poor is defined by those earning less than $9,570, which means you’re not “the poor” your Democratic Party leadership is talking about at all. You’re among “the rich” as demonstrated by your current marginal tax rate of 15% on your first $42,350 of taxable income. When your party says, “No tax cuts for the rich,” they mean you, silly.
Here’s the relevant text from the 2004 Democratic Party platform on tax reform:
“TAX REFORM TO CREATE JOBS. Today’s tax law provides big breaks for companies that send American jobs overseas. Current “deferral” policies allow American companies to avoid paying American taxes on the income earned by their foreign subsidiaries. John Kerry and John Edwards will end deferral that encourages companies to ship jobs overseas, and they will close other loopholes to make the tax code work for the American worker. They’ll use the savings to offer tax cuts for companies that produce goods and create jobs here at home. Under John Kerry and John Edwards, 99 percent of American businesses will pay lower taxes than today.”
That’s all there is. See anything in there about tax cuts for the American worker? Nope. It says nothing about tax cuts for the American worker. That’s because the Democrats are against cutting income taxes for anybody. It just says they will close other “loopholes” to make the tax code “work” for the American worker, whatever that means. They don’t even mention middle-class tax relief because they favor tax increases for “the rich,” which is simply that portion of the electorate that is simply middle-class, that is, those of us in the lower 15% and 28% tax brackets –their prime voting demographic, which, like yourself, mistakenly believes they’re “the poor” and so tend to vote Democratic.
By the way, Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people. One of your current Democratic leaders, Hillary Clinton, sat on its Board of Directors when it developed its business model in Arkansas. You can thank her for the declining wages, health care revocation, and domestic de-industrialization. Meanwhile, the federal government employs more than 2.7 million people. It is not Wal-Mart, but the Federal government that is this nation’s largest employer.
Again, you believe things that are simply, and demonstrably, just not true.
“The poor is defined by those earning less than $9,570, which means you’re not “the poor†your Democratic Party leadership is talking about at all. You’re among “the rich†as demonstrated by your current marginal tax rate of 15% on your first $42,350 of taxable income. When your party says, “No tax cuts for the rich,†they mean you, silly.”
Could you possibly be more ridiculous? I never said I was “the poor” when I was earning $22,000 per year. But I defy you to find a single Democrat in the country that qualifies income over $9,570 per year as rich. And you’ll note that every Democratic Presidential candidate except Howard Dean didn’t favor rolling back 2001 income taxes on those making less than $200,000 per year. Not only do you lie, you tell falsehoods that are easily disproven.
“That’s all there is. See anything in there about tax cuts for the American worker?”
Uh, do you not recall that Kerry was only advocating rolling back tax cuts for those making more than $250,000? Do you really think everybody here has that short of a memory? Disrespecting your audience’s intelligence this way is probably not the best way to win them over to your side.
“That’s because the Democrats are against cutting income taxes for anybody.”
Considering the U.S. has the lowest income tax rate of any industrialized country in the world, that’s a perfectly reasonable position….as is the fact that we’re footing a $9 trillion national debt with crushing interest rates that increase with every annual 12-figure deficit we run up. When considering that such deficit-fueled tax cuts have to be repaid with interest, only a stark raving dipshit would be pushing to pass even further tax cuts.
“One of your current Democratic leaders, Hillary Clinton, sat on its Board of Directors when it developed its business model in Arkansas. You can thank her for the declining wages, health care revocation, and domestic de-industrialization.”
When Hillary Clinton was on the Wal-Mart board, they made a concerted effort to buy American-made products rather than actively strongarm manufacturers to move to China to cut costs as they do today. The predatory business model didn’t hit fever pitch until the mid-1990’s, long after Hillary left the board. Sam Walton was most assuredly a modern-day robber baron, but he was still a saint compared to the new management that took over after his death.
“Meanwhile, the federal government employs more than 2.7 million people.”
Technically true. And thank God for it considering the wages and benefits of Federal employees prop up our economy. Remember back in 2003 when Bush revealed his stealth plan to erase 50% of the Federal workforce and replace them with part-timers working for pennies on the dollar? Foreshadowing of the “guest worker program”, no?
But you’re right. Getting that $200 tax cut (less than $4 per week) is far more important than the prospect of having jobs better than Wal-Mart.
You must be among the last legion of true believers, Mark, who are still more persuaded by what politicians say in their election campaigns than by what they actually do in office. It certainly would explain your socio-economic status and distorted worldview — it’s hard to get ahead when you’re just trying to get even.
Do you really think any Democratic candidate is going to declare to the American middle-class that he is going to raise their taxes? Didn’t Mondale try that? What they do instead is talk about raising taxes only on the rich to reinforce the notion that it only means people who make more than (pick a number) $250,000 a year. That’s a pretty small constituency, as they well know, which can’t hurt them at all at the polls. And even if they could double or triple the tax rate on millionaires, it’d be a drop in the bucket in federal tax revenue. It’s just not that many people. It’s the same with the estate tax, because very few Americans (1%) have a taxable estate. “Tax the rich” is just another liberal canard contemptuous of an ignorant public, but it sucks in the true believers every time because they don’t make (pick a number) $250,000 a year.
Think hard. Is there more federal tax revenue to be gained in raising the income tax rate of 10 million millionaires or raising the income tax rate of 180 million salaried and hourly-wage employees? And which is easier and more efficient to collect? Tracking the self-reported capital gains and unearned income of 10 million millionaires or directly subtracting a higher tax every week from a 180 million paychecks? Don’t let your liberal passions overwhelm your common sense. You’re the rich. They mean to raise your taxes.
Take the national debt of $9 trillion, which you apparently view (on cue from your Democratic leadership) with great alarm. Why not just think for yourself? This is a $3 trillion economy expanding at a current annual rate of 4.8%, nearly 3 times the rate of a year ago. Meanwhile, the interest rate on a 30-year bond remains steady at about 5%. Which is growing faster? The deficit? Or the economy? Should we pay down our 5% national credit card or re-invest in our 4.8% annual growth rate economy? How do you think people buy houses, Mark? They run a deficit. It’s how middle-class Americans today making $60,000 a year can afford $200,000 homes, which is certainly a considerably larger individual deficit than the collective national debt, and which also compounds at a higher rate. Are they crazy or smart? Now, if you want to talk Federal spending, that’s another matter.
Frankly, I don’t expect you to understand any of this, let alone persuade you. You’re too far gone. Your statements reveal the collosal ignorance behind your political thinking and no matter what, you’re just not going to be duped by logic and reason. Sam Walton, for instance, and the success of Wal-Mart, relied entirely on foreign low-cost manufacturing and distribution, excellent marketing, and an innovative business plan that combines a marginal profit rate with massive velocity much like a restaurant franchise, only it’s retail. The only reason Hillary was on the board was because her husband was the governor of Arkansas and she was connected to Tyson and other financiers (like MacDougal)) through the Rose law firm, the connections for which she was paid very well in WMT’s meteoric rise between 1986-1992, when she only resigned to become First Lady. Like McDonald’s, Wal-Mart is actually just a real estate company that instead of selling hamburgers, sells everything the local middle-class wants or needs to buy in a single store. They use their marginal profit rate to leverage the acquistion of more real estate, because that’s where the real money is.
But then, when you state publicly in writing that you sincerely believe that “the wages and benefits of Federal employees prop up our economy,” it only establishes your bona fides as a certified financial moron and a terminally committed utopian socialist, which is pretty much the same animal. Federal employees neither produce nor manufacture a single thing that contributes to our economy, but are merely the middlemen and direct beneficiaries of the greatest transfer of wealth in the recorded history of mankind. Their wages and benefits are provided entirely through the confiscatory taxation of American private and individual enterprise. They are a liability to economic growth, not an asset. In Minnesota, for instance, for every Federal tax dollar we send to Washington, we receive less than 70 cents in Federal services. It’s even less at the State level. Federal and State employees do not “prop up” our economy, they bleed it like a stuck pig. If that were not true, then socialist economies today would be the envy of the world, not the capitalist economy of the United States.
Vive le difference.
“Do you really think any Democratic candidate is going to declare to the American middle-class that he is going to raise their taxes?”
I guess you have a point there. Who can forget that Democratic Presidential candidate of 1988 who told us to “Read my lips! No new taxes!” who went onto raise taxes once he got elected President. Oh wait…..
“It certainly would explain your socio-economic status”
I’m no longer working in the thankless industry I was last year and will be earning a much higher income in 2006. Looks like you don’t know as much about my “socio-economic status” as you thought you did, huh?
“that it only means people who make more than (pick a number) $250,000 a year. That’s a pretty small constituency”
It sure is….but it accounts for more than half of federal income tax receipts.
“Is there more federal tax revenue to be gained in raising the income tax rate of 10 million millionaires or raising the income tax rate of 180 million salaried and hourly-wage employees?”
That’s an easy question. The former. The income distribution in this country is so out-of-whack in the modern economy that more than half of all income tax cuts go to the top 1% of income earners. You tried to have it both ways in previous posts, suggesting that the poorest half of Americans are sponges who contribute only 3.5% to the Treasury while long-suffering millionaires are being battered bloody by their contribution. Now, you’re trying to have it the other way and tell me that the aggregate of hourly-wage employees contribute more than the aggregate of millionaires. Never ceases to amaze how you people have your finger in the wind depending on the context of your plutocratic arguments.
“Take the national debt of $9 trillion, which you apparently view (on cue from your Democratic leadership) with great alarm.”
I’m just as crazy as that Gingrich guy and his GOP colleagues who voted in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution TWICE in the 1990’s when Clinton was President and it was in your party’s interest to feign concern about the national debt. Now, like good little soldiers in Army Cheney, “deficits don’t matter anymore” and anyone who suggests they are is to be ridiculed. I sometimes wonder if you people are even smart enough to realize what sleazy hypocrites you are.
“How do you think people buy houses, Mark? They run a deficit. It’s how middle-class Americans today making $60,000 a year can afford $200,000 homes, which is certainly a considerably larger individual deficit than the collective national debt, and which also compounds at a higher rate. Are they crazy or smart? Now, if you want to talk Federal spending, that’s another matter.”
Considering the culture’s tireless consumer binge has produced a national savings rate of negative two percent at the exact time that George Bush is trying to convince us that self-financing our own retirement is preferable to a Social Security check, arguing that the nation’s pending financial armageddon is really no worse than the general public’s financial meltdown isn’t exactly reassuring.
“The only reason Hillary was on the board was because her husband was the governor of Arkansas and she was connected to Tyson and other financiers (like MacDougal)) through the Rose law firm, the connections for which she was paid very well in WMT’s meteoric rise between 1986-1992, when she only resigned to become First Lady.”
That’s true to an extent. The Clintons have always been shady political opportunists. However, Wal-Mart’s reputation was much higher in the 1980’s than it is today. I can assure you that Hillary or any other Democrat with national political ambitions would never be on the board of Wal-Mart with its current business model.
“Federal employees neither produce nor manufacture a single thing that contributes to our economy, but are merely the middlemen and direct beneficiaries of the greatest transfer of wealth in the recorded history of mankind. Their wages and benefits are provided entirely through the confiscatory taxation of American private and individual enterprise.”
Fire every Federal employee tomorrow, thus throwing more than 2.5 million well-paid workers with middle-class lifestyles into a private sector job market where the “new jobs being created” consist primarily of store clerks, fry cooks, and nurse’s aides at an average wage of $8.50 an hour, and the result would be the economic equivalent of a neutron bomb. It’s always fascinating how the highest-paying jobs in our economy (government or private-sector union) are the ones which conservatives salivate at the very thought of obliterating. The obvious consequence is a hyperexpansion of poverty in America, which creates more lower-income people for conservatives to hate at the same time as their country club campaign contributors expand their personal worth and can further complain about being overtaxed. A perfect, vicious cycle.
“They are a liability to economic growth, not an asset.”
The stable incomes and purchasing power of government employees is the only thing that keeps economic downturns from being even more bruising and long-lasting.
“In Minnesota, for instance, for every Federal tax dollar we send to Washington, we receive less than 70 cents in Federal services. It’s even less at the State level.”
Are you for real or are you a liberal faking wingnuttia for a good laugh? Minnesota is a wealthy state that votes blue, just like nearly every other wealthy state does. Your premise is bass-ackwards. Right down the list, it’s the red states who allegedly abide by your worldview who sponge the 30 cents (and then some) of every Minnesota tax dollar. The people you fancy as being your political allies would be living in Third World conditions if not for the billions in highway funds and crop subsidies they lap up through the Federal trough annually. This is about the fifth time you’ve brought up a point that inconveniently hurts your argument which you ironically believed to be a means to victory when originally typing them.
I see, so your point is that Minnesotans are so rich that they SHOULD pay the freight for people living in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennesee, Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Maine, and Washington, DC — all of which are “red states,” and all of which receive a higher percentage of Federal expenditures per tax dollar sent than does The Great State of Minnesota? New York’s a red state? Massachusetts is a red state? Louisiana? On which planet?
This is all a matter of public record, Mark. You’d know that if you ever bothered to do your own homework. And, yes, George H. W. Bush promised no new taxes in 1988, raised taxes instead, and was promptly voted out of office in 1992, followed by Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate in the 1994 mid-term elections. It was political suicide.
“Now, you’re trying to have it the other way and tell me that the aggregate of hourly-wage employees contribute more than the aggregate of millionaires.”
That’s because it happens to be true, Mark. Perhaps I’ve posed too complicated an equation for you to understand. Let me try again: If you are trying to collect as many eggs as possible, would you rather have ten more eggs from 10 chickens? Or one more egg from 180 chickens? Which is more?
What you probably also don’t comprehend is that when you raise taxes on millionaires to confiscatory rates, they don’t just fork it over in higher taxes. They pay their lawyers and accountants instead to protect their financial interests. They create non-profit foundations for write-offs, private charitable trusts, invest in tax-sheltered partnerships, S-corporations, off-shore accounts, precious commodities and the like, or they just leave the country and invest some place else. Just because Congress passes a tax increase doesn’t mean they’re going to pay it. Instead, all it does is dry up investment, create capital flight, and lower tax revenues. This is also a matter of public record because we’ve been through all this before in the 70’s. Keynes was wrong.
As for the deficit, I never said they “don’t matter,” I just suggested they don’t matter in the way most people think they do. That it’s a $9 trillion or $90 trillion deficit doesn’t matter so long as the economy is expanding at an adequate rate to sustain it, for which I provided the credit card analogy and the example of a home mortgage. Debt is not a bad thing, it’s how you manage it that matters. Where I agree with you is that the American consumer is outrageously over-extended, as is the Federal government if only to a lesser degree (60% GDP). Where I disagree with you is George Bush is exactly right when it comes to retirement. Anybody who expects to rely on Social Security deserves exactly what they’ll get. It’s a ponzie scheme that years ago ran its course and workers today will never receive in benefits what they paid into it. Hell, I’ll never receive what I paid into it. Only a fool today would not be by now self-financing his own retirement.
“I can assure you that Hillary or any other Democrat with national political ambitions would never be on the board of Wal-Mart with its current business model.”
Heh. It’s kinda funny you should mention that just now. Not that she has any national political ambitions, but Aida Alvarez, the former Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration during Clinton’s second term just joined the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. Not that it means anything about anything; corporate boardrooms are notoriously incestuous. Still it does illustrate again how your assumptions don’t comport with reality.
Mark, I think you’re just one of those well-meaning people who begin with their great sense of humanity and then try to find the facts and arguments to support their own pre-determined, emotionally satisfying conclusions. For instance, you describe the current economy where the “new jobs being created†consist primarily of store clerks, fry cooks, and nurse’s aides at an average wage of $8.50 an hour, having previously just announced you have recently found work where you will be earning a much higher income in 2006, presumably more than $8.50 an hour or $22,000 a year. That’s good news, and sincerely, congratulations, but it pretty well destroys your own argument, doesn’t it? And not to pile on, but in a $3 trillion economy, even if every Federal employee earned a salary of $1 million, there are only some 2.7 million Federal employees and their combined purchasing power would be just 9% of today’s GDP. Of course, they earn considerably less than $1 million in salary, so their combined purchasing power would be considerably less than 9%, more like 1%, which really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in a $3 trillion economy and would have absolutely no impact in keeping “economic downturns from being even more bruising and long-lasting” especially to the extent they are financially distressed themselves, having a negative savings rate.
Once again, you clearly believe things that are demonstrably and indisputably false. I understand it may be more emotionally satisfying for you to believe this crap, but it is simply not true. And as long as you persist in having no evidence whatsoever for the things you believe in, Mark, you are going to be exceedingly frustrated and disappointed in life and waste a whole lot of time being angry with and hating the people who first learn the facts and then form their conclusions, and so cannot and will not be persuaded to believe in the same things you do because it simply isn’t true. It’s insane.
Good luck in your new job. I wish you well.
ERACUS
“I see, so your point is that Minnesotans are so rich that they SHOULD pay the freight for people living in…..”
I’m cool with it so long as the sponge states get over their perception of being for “smaller government” when they’re dependent on Minnesota and other mostly blue states that pay for South Dakota, Kentucky, Mississippi, and yes, the increasingly red state of Louisiana. As for New York and Massachusetts, their ratio of tax revenue payments vs. federal outlays may be less lopsided in favor of revenue than is Minnesota’s, but they still pay more than they get back. I’ve seen the charts. Almost all of the states that get more back than they pay are pseudo-cowboy red states.
” Perhaps I’ve posed too complicated an equation for you to understand. Let me try again: If you are trying to collect as many eggs as possible, would you rather have ten more eggs from 10 chickens? Or one more egg from 180 chickens? Which is more?”
Again, you’re all over the map. You continue to run away from your original smear on the working class (that they pay only 3.5% of the collective income tax burden) in favor of your new talking point that the Democrats, even though they don’t control government at any level, are the puppetmasters of a secret conspiracy to hyperinflate the tax burden on those making $22,000 per year because their nickels and dimes is where the money is. Which is it? You haven’t posed an equation to complicated. You’ve simply posed an ever-mutating chain of equations too contradictory to mesh together in any sort of cohesive financial worldview other than “Democrats suck…and so do the freeloading blue-collar filth, er, overtaxed ‘new rich’ grunts who vote for them”.
“And, yes, George H. W. Bush promised no new taxes in 1988, raised taxes instead, and was promptly voted out of office in 1992, followed by Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate in the 1994 mid-term elections.”
Even Ronald Reagan spent most of the 1980’s raising taxes after his initial 1981 tax cut proved too large and stole too much money from the Treasury. The fact that Reagan followed one tax cut with three tax increases to prevent a financial meltdown shows how flawed the supply-side orthodoxy is.
“What you probably also don’t comprehend is that when you raise taxes on millionaires to confiscatory rates, they don’t just fork it over in higher taxes.”
There’s certainly some truth to that, particularly if the rate of taxation were to rise to the level that it could indeed qualify as “confiscatory”. Paradoxically, however, the insurgence of revenues from affluent households was never more abundant than those seven years when the Clinton-era top tax rate of 39.5% was the going rate. In the Republican mindset, unless the top tax rate is in perpetual freefall (within the obvious endgame of zero taxation on wealthy individuals), it’s “confiscatory” abuse of the long-suffering millionaires who, despite the cold-blooded oppression they’ve lived under in the last three decades of shrinking (yet still ruinous) tax rates, are seeing their incomes rise at a rate far faster than any other income group in America.
“Anybody who expects to rely on Social Security deserves exactly what they’ll get. It’s a ponzie scheme that years ago ran its course and workers today will never receive in benefits what they paid into it. Hell, I’ll never receive what I paid into it. Only a fool today would not be by now self-financing his own retirement. ”
The real fool is the guy who thinks he can take $1 trillion out of the current pyramid scheme, hand it over to Wall Street investors as a down payment for their PSA’s, and produce a solution other than a less stable retirement system that serves fewer people and runs out of money a trillion dollars earlier that it otherwise would have.
“having previously just announced you have recently found work where you will be earning a much higher income in 2006, presumably more than $8.50 an hour or $22,000 a year. That’s good news, and sincerely, congratulations, but it pretty well destroys your own argument, doesn’t it?”
Uh, not really, since the job I found is in state government, meaning I’m one of those well-paid workers you most despise. Had I capitulated earlier last year and settled for another private sector job instead of waiting it out, getting lucky and landing this government job, I’d be making far less, and would’ve most likely taken a pay cut from the $22,000 I was making.
Repetition of failure in expectation of a different result is the height of insanity, Mark. It is painfully obvious you have no evidence for what you believe other than what someone else told you, what you read in a newspaper, or heard somewhere else on TV. You lack the capacity to think critically and so have contradicted yourself repeatedly, replacing one delusion with another, all of them easily refuted by facts, and all of them inspired by your bigoted anger and hatred for anyone who does not share your beliefs. Congratulations. You are exactly where you belong: employed by the Socialist Republic of Minnesota and in lock-step with today’s modern Democratic Party.
For the record, I am the working class. I don’t believe the lower 50% of taxpayers don’t contribute too much, I think they contribute too much. I used to be a Democrat, but then I got a good job, went to school, and moved out of Minnesota. You are, with all your self-righteous ignorance, exactly why I and millions of other former Democrat working class Americans elected a Republican president and a GOP majority to both houses of Congress twice, and will do so again. If I could suggest anything to you it would be to at least study the history of the beliefs you’ve been taught and have yet to challenge. You might learn, for instance, that the Minnesota DFL, whose institutions educated you and which you now work for, has its origins in the American Communist Party.
Look it up.
“It is painfully obvious you have no evidence for what you believe other than what someone else told you, what you read in a newspaper, or heard somewhere else on TV.”
The latter two examples are where most source information comes from. I’m not sure what makes your sources so much more convincing than mine….apparently because they confirm your pre-determined view of the way the world is wired while mine throw a monkey wrench in that view.
“You lack the capacity to think critically and so have contradicted yourself repeatedly”
Humorous coming from you, seeing as how your entire thesis has been twisted and contorted about eight times now. I don’t think you even know what you’re arguing at this point, other than “Democrats are yucky!”
“You are exactly where you belong: employed by the Socialist Republic of Minnesota”
I no longer live or work in the state of Minnesota.
“You are, with all your self-righteous ignorance, exactly why I and millions of other former Democrat working class Americans elected a Republican president and a GOP majority to both houses of Congress twice, and will do so again.”
Who knew lil’ ol’ me had that much influence? There are just as many former Republicans who can point to the bogeyman that made them change to Democrats, and we’re likely to see just how many of them there are in another 2 1/2 months.
“You might learn, for instance, that the Minnesota DFL, whose institutions educated you and which you now work for, has its origins in the American Communist Party.”
Pretty sad when you have to go back to 1930’s to draw reference to where Farmer-Labor Party was connected to the Communists…and before the Communists were rooted out when they merged with the Democrats in the mid-1940’s. More than 60 years later, don’t you think it’s time for a more contemporary axiom to describe your political foes?
“The latter two examples are where most source information comes from.”
That’s your problem in a nutshell, Mark. You don’t pursue any sources beyond newspapers and TV. It’s all you know and you think you’re “informed.” The reality is you are woefully misinformed and don’t know it and are too ego-centric to consider the possibility.
“Who knew lil’ ol’ me had that much influence? There are just as many former Republicans who can point to the bogeyman that made them change to Democrats, and we’re likely to see just how many of them there are in another 2 1/2 months.”
Well, not you specifically, silly, but you and all the rest of the ego-centric nutjobs in your party who believe everything they read in a newspaper or see on TV and think history began the day they were born.
“before the Communists were rooted out when they merged with the Democrats in the mid-1940’s…”
Right, and that’s why the Democrats are saying today the same thing the communists were saying then, minus Joe Lieberman, who had the audacity to disagree and so was purged from the Party. And of course there are no communists in Russia anymore either, right? And George Bush is the real global terrorist. And we’re fighting a war in Iraq for oil and Haliburton. Meanwhile, WalMart is the real enemy and the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes, although they bear 96.54% of the burden. And since you saw all this on TV or read about it in a newspaper, then it must be true, right? It’s the rest of us who’ve got it all wrong.
“More than 60 years later, don’t you think it’s time for a more contemporary axiom to describe your political foes?”
Not as long as Jimmy Carter is telling Der Speigel today the same thing the Stalinists were telling The New York Times in 1939. If you knew your history, you’d know that. But you haven’t got a clue. You obviously don’t know your history. And as long as you believe newspapers and television are “where most source information comes from,” you never will know your history, and so are doomed to repeat it.