GOP Socialist Tag: Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall...
McCain/Palin and other Republican politicians running for office are throwing the ‘socialist’ tag at their Democratic opponents in the hopes it will stick to voter’s foreheads while lining up to vote. Rather odd and illogical tactic unless they are targeting voters who have been oblivious to the socialist doubling of the national debt by Republicans these last 7 and 3/4 years.
Socialist is a word with about as many meanings as there are political parties in the U.S. (66 of them). For the sake of brevity, I shall use the definition as it applies to economies defined by Wikipedia this way: "Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and / or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution."
This is a workable and applicable definition to what is currently taking place in part, by the U.S. government in terms of the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, popularly known as the "Bailout" of financial and bank institutions. This law was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and voted for by both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. The provisions of the Stabilization Act allow for the government to buy shares of private companies as a sort of collateral against the tax payer money issued to them. But, by the definition above, this is government taking partial ownership of these private institutions.
It is then, a bit of a stretch for Republicans to try to label Democrats as socialist, in light of the Stabilization Act being first proposed by Republicans in the White House, and then adopted by Republicans and Democrats alike in the Congress, including duopoly party candidates, Obama and McCain. Sen. McCain tries to use the term "socialist" to refer to Obama's intent to 'redistribute the wealth'. However, it was McCain's vote to collect tax dollars from regular working Americans and offer it to private corporation's shareholders and executives to rescue the value of their stock and prevent them from falling into bankruptcy, that is by definition socialist, taking ownership of private sector enterprises.
Sen. McCain is an advocate, at least on the campaign trail, for military personnel support. He advocates taking civilian tax dollars and redistributing it to military families in the form of bonuses, better housing, and medical care, after voting against such spending in some cases. Is his campaign rhetoric socialist?
In fact, the military is one of America's oldest targets for socialist spending of tax dollars, redistributing the wealth of tax payers directly to a specific group of individuals to meet their needs and wishes as they go about their job of national defense. The ancient Greeks of Athens at one time employed the services of the Spartans as a private contractor for defense. That was the non-socialist way to go about national defense.
McCain's approach to military spending is not dissimilar to politicians taking voter tax dollars as pay and compensation for themselves. Though many would argue our military provides tax payer's with better earned services than our politicians, but the military is owned by the U.S. government, not private enterprise. (Eliminate the military and we would be vulnerable, eliminate politicians and we would quickly experience the true meaning of anarchy). They are both necessary, but, could they not be contracted from the private sector for such services? This is in fact, in part what Pres. GW Bush attempted with the IRS, only to discover that the cost of collecting taxes increased with private contractors, instead of decreasing as was intended.
The government is the sole investor in some of our military private industries, and a major benefactor in others. We tried outsourcing military operations in a big way in Iraq to the likes of KBR and Halliburton. The result was taxpayers getting soaked for 10's of billions of wasted dollars, some of which electrocuted and killed some of our soldiers while taking showers, or washing a vehicle.
Such deaths would not have occurred if GI's were responsible for wiring the electrical circuits in US facilities in Iraq, instead of private contractors. Government run operations like the IRS and military actually save tax payer dollars over outsourcing to the private industry, which takes short cuts for profits and increases the cost for profits, when and where it can.
There are some things the government can do better and cheaper than the private sector. That fact does not mandate a socialist economy nor even warrant the socialist tag. Just as Communist Socialist China incorporates capitalism as part of its mixed economy because it simply works better than command control without earning the title of Capitalist, so too, must America employ government social programs like government itself, military, IRS, infrastructure management, and a host of others, which are more efficiently run and successful in meeting their intended objectives than the private sector would be, without being tagged a Socialist nation.
There isn't a single nation in the world today that is not a mixed economy of both capitalism and socialism. It works. Some work better, some worse depending on the mix, but, the mixed economy model has become the preferred choice of every nation on earth. That is no accident or coincidence of history either. It is high time Americans got over the use of terms like capitalist pig, and socialist commie as labels employed for political purposes, and got on with the debate of how much of each is most appropriate for our nation and in what sectors of our economy they can best be employed.
Unregulated capitalism is what created this financial institution bubble which burst. This bubble was built on irresponsible greed. That is not an indictment of the concept of capitalism, only on how it was employed. The same is true of the Social Security concept. If employed as intended when envisioned by the FDR administration, as an insurance against poverty, instead of entitlement to all regardless of success or wealth, the plan would not be approaching deficits as quickly as it is now positioned to.
And let's not be so quick to label parties by these labels. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who "via a 1982 Executive Order, President Reagan established the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities. In each year of his presidency, Reagan increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. In a 1983 speech he declared, "We support the National Endowment for the Arts to stimulate excellence and make art more available to more of our people." [Wikipedia] Did this make Reagan a socialist? Government investing in private artists and their works?
Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, established the national park and federal lands preservation ideal and system. Did this make him a socialist? Ronald Reagan protected Social Security and Medicare programs even as he attempted to remove from Medicare's rolls disabled individuals. Did this make Reagan a socialist. The corporate subsidies by Republicans were enormous and widespread. Did this 'redistribution of wealth' earn Republicans the moniker of socialist or worse, fascist? Of course, not.
Richard Nixon is responsible for Supplemental Security Income (or SSI) which is a monthly stipend provided to aged (legally deemed to be 65 or older), blind, or disabled persons based on need, paid by the United States Government. The program was to be administered by the Social Security Administration. Did this earn Nixon the moniker of a socialist? It was by definition of Sen. John McCain, wealth redistribution.
Sen. McCain's attempts to brand Obama as a socialist should only follow labeling Ronald, Reagan, G H. Bush, Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon, socialists. McCain simply doesn't want to pay for government, and his tax plan creates a trillion dollars more national debt that Barack Obama's tax plan, 4.1 trillion cost vs. 2.9 trillion. Increasing national debt is quite directly levying increased taxes on future generations to pay for the benefit of government spending for current voters. Is this not just another version of redistributing the wealth, from future citizens to present citizens?
Let's dispense with, and rebuff labels of socialist and capitalist in our political jargon. They serve no useful purpose, and do the nation harm by influencing voters to vote on the basis of irrational and false information and ideas. Republicans simply employ a different brand of socialist policies with differing recipient targets, than Democrats. It is the mix and blend of social policy and private sector policy that we should be debating. Not labels that truly have no relevant information to convey.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most socialist of them all? Is it Republicans or Democrats on socialist steps who stand more tall? It is a non-sensical question, because America is not a socialist nation, and neither are McCain or Obama socialists for campaigning on different mixes and targets for social and regulated enterprise policies. Let's move on Senators McCain and Obama to discussing policy details instead of meaningless political labels.
Posted by David R. Remer at October 28, 2008 01:16 PMI disagree with many of Mr. Remer’s specific points, but since I don’t want to be here all night explaining why I’ll just agree with his general point. Too many Republicans have behaved too much like socialists. Good, now that that’s over with…
Seems a lot of times voting is like choosing whether you want to be kicked in the groin or hit in the head with a hammer. This election is no exception.
We’re just not gonna get anybody this go-around who has a perfect record of fiscal responsibility and sound pro-growth agenda. But it’s a matter of degree.
Lots of folks point out how lots of promises the candidates are making won’t be possible since the money just isn’t there after the financial mess.
But I think there’s a bigger problem, and that’s what gonna happen if Congress and the White House are controlled by the Democrats. McCain’s been no angel when it comes to controlling illegal immigration, but Obama’s even worse, and the Democrats believe that they’ll be able to take Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and even Texas in all the future elections if they pull out all the stops and give citizenship and voting rights to the upwards of 20 plus million illegals now in our country. It’s estimated that a half a million to a million new ones are coming into the country each year.
If Obama’s president, it’s a done deal. If McCain becomes president, he’s at least come around to border-enforcement before a path to citizenship, and his and the Republican’s requirements for legalization are a hell of lot more stringent that the anything-goes Democrats. There’s also a lot more anti-illegal immigration types on the Republican side who would have influence over a Republican candidate.
Middle-class Democrats who think they’re gonna get a bigger slice of the rich folks’ pie under Obama seem to be forgetting that they’re gonna have to share their slice of the pie with a bunch of poor, undereducated illegals.
They think that it’s gonna be the rich folk’s wealth that’ll be redistributed. But it’ll be their jobs, healthcare, and educational opportunities that are going to be redistributed to millions and millions of Mexicans and South Americans.
Posted by: Liam at October 28, 2008 08:29 PMLiam, I completely agree with you. The republicans weren’t given much of a choice. There was no excitement in the conservative base until Palin came along. I personally, will not be voting for McCain, I will be voting for Palin.
But, the alternative is frightening. A dem controlled congress and BHO. If they are veto proof, there is nothing they won’t do. I fear it is the end of our republic. The constitution and bill of rights will be destroyed by activist judges in the SC.
The only comfort I can draw from is that I am old. I feel sorry for my kids and grandkids.
All taxes are going up.
The unemployement and interest rates of Carter will seem like a picnic.
Unions and taxes will drive the rest of the companies out of the country.
We will succumb to Europe.
The UN will control our military or at least what is left of our military after the cuts.
Global warming scares will cause carbon taxes and there will be high costs and shortages of gas and oil.
Increased SS taxes and the age of retirement will go up.
Nothing good can come from a BHO win, it’s all in the hands of God.
Posted by: Oldguy at October 28, 2008 08:59 PMI might also include, the list above is the result of a socialist government. And that is where we are headed.
Posted by: Oldguy at October 28, 2008 09:02 PMDavid:
“Sen. McCain is an advocate, at least on the campaign trail, for military personnel support. He advocates taking civilian tax dollars and redistributing it to military families in the form of bonuses, better housing, and medical care, after voting against such spending in some cases. Is his campaign rhetoric socialist?” As a veteran, you should realize that these benefits that you have listed are part of a contract signed by the enlistee. The compensation and benefits are dependent on the enlistee’s completion of service in honorable fashion. Drug use, oral/homosexual sex or any of the other numerous violations of the UCMJ will disqualify the enlistee from recieving any of the benefits you have listed, including disqualifing him/her from even retaining their job. Should these same rules disqualify any other government employee from theirs? Socalism….No sir, these people are awarded these benefits as quickly as they are disqualified from them. We cannot say the same for SS, SSI and Welfare recipients. Socialism….NO.
“In fact, the military is one of America’s oldest targets for socialist spending of tax dollars, redistributing the wealth of tax payers directly to a specific group of individuals to meet their needs and wishes as they go about their job of national defense. The ancient Greeks of Athens at one time employed the services of the Spartans as a private contractor for defense. That was the non-socialist way to go about national defense.” Please explain to all of the readers of Watchblog how the members of the military that have sacrificed….ie renounced the rights afforded the general populous, are benefits of socialism. You should know better. An E-4, married with 2 children qualify for Welfare, food stamps and WIC, have none of the rights of the average American citizen, Hell they have less rights than the average illegal immigrant and yet you paint them as socialist recipiants. Sir, your viewpoint in this article is more than lacking. I plan to dispute your article and philosophy in more detail tomorrow, but this philosophy is so wrong that I had to comment before I go to bed.
Posted by: submarinesforever at October 28, 2008 09:06 PMMilitary families are federal employees. I’ve never known a conservative to say that you shouldn’t pay your employees. But soldiers, and veterans above all, are more than just employees. We owe them a debt that goes way beyond what we owe any politician. Without them, everything else we’ve got ain’t worth the paper it is or isn’t written on. Free people who don’t revere and take care of their defenders don’t even deserve to be free. All of freedoms have been bought with blood, and when we forget that, we’re as good as and even deserve to be slaves. My opinion.
Posted by: Liam at October 28, 2008 09:33 PMDavid:
I think this story tells it all:
Today, as I was going to lunch, a homeless guy wearing an Obama button was sitting in front of the restaurant.
At lunch, my waitress was also wearing an Obama button,so I decided to give this redistribution thing a test.
I told the waitress that I wans’t going to give her a tip. Instead, I told her, I would give the $10 that I was going to give to her to the homeless guy outside.
She cussed me out and stormed away.
Outside, I gave the guy the $10, and he was very happy.
I realized the homeless guy was happy for the $10 he didn’t earn, while the waitress was angry because I gave away the money she earned to someone else although the recipient was a more worthy candidate.
I guess redistribution is an easier concept to swallow in theory, but not in practicial application.
Sicilian eagle, did you really do that? I’ve seen a version of the same story posted around the internet, so I’m just wondering.
To do it right though, you need to do this. Bring in two homeless guys after lunch and have them vote on who gets that $10. Them or the one who earned it. That would pretty much show you how liberal policies look when they’re put in action.
Posted by: Liam at October 28, 2008 10:04 PMLiam
It was a “rhetorical flourish”….that proves a point.
:)
The thing has been over the internet all day.
Fit very well in David’s piece, which I liked and admired,by the way..not that I agree, but he really did a nice job.
Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 28, 2008 10:22 PMAnybody who has ever waited tables knows there are people who go around stiffing them on tips. Those kinds of people come up with all kinds of reasons not to tip. In this story, it’s ok to stiff the waiter because they are an Obama supporter. Apparently Rush Limbaugh received 1000 e-mails with the same story. Ugly stuff. It speaks volumes on just how nasty and unpleasant conservatism can be. Republicans should hang their heads in shame.
Posted by: phx8 at October 28, 2008 10:36 PMPhx8, I’ve worked as a waiter, and I know exactly what it’s like to get stiffed and how angry it made me. There were the occasional times when the restaurant was swamped and people got very slow service. Not my fault, but hey, I can see why they were mad.
On the rare occasion I screwed up an order, most people tipped anyway but most of the times when I got stiffed the service was excellent and the people were just too inconsiderate or drunk or eager to get their date home and in bed to think about the working Joe.
The anger I felt as a waiter when I got stiffed is exactly the same as the anger I feel now when I see taxes taken out of my paycheck to support people who didn’t work for that money. You say this is “ugly stuff” and I agree. But the nastiness isn’t just conservative. It’s liberal too, and the liberals who are coming after my hard earned money should be the ones hanging their heads in shame.
Posted by: Liam at October 28, 2008 11:03 PMLiam,
So the problem with taxation is… the money is going to someone else? Who represents a problem when they get your money and my money? Is it a problem if the money goes to defense contractors? Is it a problem if the money goes to pay interest on the debt? Our tax dollars support a ‘defense’ industry which exports as many arms to the world as the rest of all arms exporters combined. I have a big problem with that. Do you?
Let’s talk about that interest on the national debt. The GOP and Bush cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and conducted a war without raising taxes. The results: a doubling of debt. We now pay a large amount of interest on debt. Your money and my money went to an unjust war, and you and I are paying the interest for those tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the ones who need a helping hand the least. I have a big problem with that. Do you?
The policies implemented by Bush and supported by McCain have been disastrous.
If the money I earn goes to those who make less, and overall everyone does better, and my services are in demand, I benefit. Cut my taxes and tank the economy, and I lose, big time. I save a few thousand in taxes, and lose tens of thousands in income. Raise my taxes and provide a healthy economy and cha-ching! I cash in. I pay thousands more in taxes, but I make tens of thousands more in income. I want to see a healthy economy. It’s that simple.
Posted by: phx8 at October 28, 2008 11:36 PMAs long as we’re going in for rhetorical flourishes, let’s see what happens when we make the situation truly analogous to Republican policies.
In this scenario, you give the extra ten dollars straight to the owner of the restaurant, and tell both the waitress and the homeless guy that they will benefit by having the money trickle down to them.
Posted by: Jarandhel at October 29, 2008 02:08 AMYou’re probably right. Better to give it to the owner than the homeless guy. The owner might turn it into to a way to hire more employees, the homeless guy probably won’t be hiring me anytime soon. Fewer homeless people by giving it to the owner.
Posted by: andy at October 29, 2008 02:54 AMDavid good post. I guess the socialist line wasn’t scaring people off as it is now Marxist that the repubs have started using.
http://www.bittenandbound.com/2008/10/25/barbara-west-vs-joe-biden-interview-video/
“Let’s dispense with, and rebuff labels of socialist and capitalist in our political jargon. They serve no useful purpose, and do the nation harm by influencing voters to vote on the basis of irrational and false information and ideas.”
It seems to me McCain and Palin are using the socialist line for exactly that reason David. They don’t seem to care if you based upon false information as long as you vote for them.
Obama seems to be thinking a little farther ahead and is not insulting the McCain /Palin ticket to such a degree as it will only fester animosity in the political arena. That shows leadership to most of us. Obama’s rhetoric is much more conducive to working across the aisle. Despite McCain’s empty claims of bipartisanship his message tells the story.
Oldguy said “Liam, I completely agree with you. The republicans weren’t given much of a choice.”
Really Tancredo, Hunter, Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, Guliani, Paul, oh yeah and McSame. The republicans chose McCain. Not much choice huh? I may be wrong but isn’t that crew as good as you got for conservatives in the republican party?
“I will be voting for Palin.
But, the alternative is frightening.”
Thanks Oldguy thats the best one I have heard all day. I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read it, great line. The irony is overwhelming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_presidential_candidates
If Ive learned one thing here it this, sicilian eagle`s posts are so silly and false they are not worth reading.
When you post facts refuting his posts he ignores that post and moves on to more crap.
— Savage
Posted by: A Savage at October 29, 2008 05:44 AMA Savage
Sorry you feel that way. The hypo is a good one and evoked discussion.
Whatever “facts” Obama has are subject to debate..up and down the line. However, a good offense in the best defense I guess, but I have been fairly consistent presenting my views as a partisian…for years now.
For examlle: yesterday he said that he would raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. I bet every McDonald’s worker yelped for joy. However, minimum wage jobs will shrink,not grow as small business owners fight for their lives.
Barry is brilliant..he’s run the best campaign I think, in the history of presidential elections. He’s flush with cash,has powerful friends,and seems like a shoe-in.
However, some just don’t agree with him. Some fly against the grain. Some believe in hard work,sacrifice..not hand-outs.
You can call me a troll if you want, but really I am a concerned American, a grandfather of three and a father of three who holds a diffening viewpoint.
Besides, last I looked, 44% or 45% happen to agree with my thought.
Just maybe, we can find that other 3%,as all it will take is 48% of the electorate to win this thing.
Ask Al Gore.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 29, 2008 07:09 AM“I bet every McDonald’s worker yelped for joy. However, minimum wage jobs will shrink,not grow as small business owners fight for their lives.”
Or profit margins may shrink back to where they were before business decided to gain profit on the hard work and sacrifice of wage earners by letting wages stagnate to the point of poverty.
“Some fly against the grain. Some believe in hard work,sacrifice..not hand-outs.”
maybe but it seems to be the cons believe in profiting from others hard work and sacrifice, not their own. Most of us to the left of center believe in a hand up not a hand out so we do differ.
“but really I am a concerned American, a grandfather of three and a father of three who holds a diffening viewpoint.”
Then why would you want to see the largest generational transfer of debt in history to the next 2 or more generations so the wealthy can have a lower tax rate today?
Posted by: k2t2 at October 29, 2008 08:59 AMDavid
You have posted a very well written piece. I find it a contradiction that the very people who have tried so desperately and failed so completely to reshape how our country operates over the last eight years is so quick to throw out terms like socialism. The problem is not that they throw them out there, but in the manner they present them. As if they are devilish works of communist propaganda designed to turn the lives of all over to government. As if we will all need to live in constant fear of a government ready to pounce on us for something so simple as expression of opinion. As you say there is no society completely free of some socialistic tendencies. It is unavoidable especially in this age of globalism. Changes in how we approach society and governance is in order and is coming whether we like it or not. The important thing is that change is monitored and shaped in such a manner that it does not allow government absolute control of our lives. What we experienced under Bush was a situation in which a few very rich and influential people were allowed to largely dictate how government and business operates. That concept has failed us. It now is time to find a median point that will work for us all. That is not socialism it is just plain old good business sense. Those businesses that do not evolve with the times generally lose out and will do so in time, should they choose not to evolve. I can understand the desire to fight change for fear that it may get out of control. But on the other hand I see the need for change. The last eight years clearly demonstrated just how much damage poor and improper direction can do to a nation.
Posted by: RickIL at October 29, 2008 09:28 AM>Just maybe, we can find that other 3%,as all it will take is 48% of the electorate to win this thing. Ask Al Gore.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 29, 2008 07:09 AM
Egret,
Don’t just ask Al Gore…ask the Florida Secretary of State and the Supreme Court (not the one in Florida, but the one in DC).
Posted by: Marysdude at October 29, 2008 10:01 AMSE
I enjoy your posts.
j2t2: you are taking me out of context, but that is normal for the left, to twist the meaning of things around. What we hear from BHO and Biden are saying is slowly changing. $250,000 went to $200,000 and now there will be no tax increase on $150.000. By election day, it will be $30,000 and below.
Posted by: Oldguy at October 29, 2008 10:11 AMOld,
It is you who takes things out of context…$200,000 for singles, $250,000 for joint, and the 150,000 was just a figure to designate the median mostly effected by the cuts…get real.
Posted by: Marysdude at October 29, 2008 10:35 AM“j2t2: you are taking me out of context, but that is normal for the left, to twist the meaning of things around. What we hear from BHO and Biden are saying is slowly changing. $250,000 went to $200,000 and now there will be no tax increase on $150.000. By election day, it will be $30,000 and below.”
Speaking of “out of context” and “twist the meaning” Oldguy it seems your statement is just that. The Obama campaign hasn’t lowered any ceiling on taxes, its just you and the McCain/Palin ticket taking it out of context and twisting it to allow you to call others socialist no matter how inaccurate the statement is.
As far as the repubs not having a choice.. well.. you see.. you did have a choice, it is called the primaries, just like the dems had a choice. Your team chose McCain, who chose Palin, on that decision you didn’t have much choice and are suffering the effects of not choosing the presidential candidate wisely. You can only blame team republican for that. You can also understand why some of us think the name calling is detrimental to the political process as it is unwarranted and untrue. How can you expect others to take your political party seriously when the proposed presidential candidate and his running mate are name calling, misleading and espousing failed economic policies that have imploded our financial institutions?
On the “I will be voting for Palin.
But, the alternative is frightening.” comment yes out of context a bit. The last sentence in the paragraph and the first sentence in the next paragraph, but when I read it I had to thank you for the laugh. It was comical.
k2t2
you said:
“Then why would you want to see the largest generational transfer of debt in history to the next 2 or more generations so the wealthy can have a lower tax rate today?”
Posted by: k2t2 at October 29, 2008 08:59 AM
I say:
The best question ever to the Mighty Eagle,and I will be pleased to respond in order to understand my philosophy better:
Sicilians are survivors. After nearly 2 milenia of ruthless oppression, my gene pool learned, as a matter of base survival of the species, to trust the instinct of oneself, and to become a survivor. Sicilians are survivors.
Thus, my grandkids will have at least been exposed to that mindset and decide if it fits them or not.
I live in Sicily a good part of every year and travel to Europe (mostly Italy and Holland) and have learned from the Sicilians that with vitrually no government net, they have survived nicely.
As long as my kids can survive, better thenselves a bit from the previous generation, I are happy. One kid is a lawyer, the other a special ed. teacher, the other an art college grad and singer, I’d say we’re ok….with no governmet help. We survive.
Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 29, 2008 10:41 AMSen. McCain’s attempts to brand Obama as a socialist should only follow labeling Ronald, Reagan, G H. Bush, Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon, socialists.There is no proof yet that Obama will be overly socialist.
However, Obama’s statement about “spreading the wealth” is what is fueling that.
That was a dumb thing to say.
It’s amazing that Obama would even whisper such a sound-bite (even if he truly believes it to any significantly large degree).
Today, we already have some distribution of wealth, but that doesn’t mean it is all bad.
For example, most Americans are OK with welfare and assistance for the truly needy.
And many Americans are OK with some foreign aid and intervention to help address widespread disasters, famine, death, disease, refugee problems, crime, etc.
And many Americans are OK with Social Security if it were not so severely mismanaged.
Tax payers are angry about:
- the regressive tax caps (i.e. $102K for year 2008) on Social Security
- voters are angry about it being severely mismanaged (if not outright sabotaged) and the surpluses being continually plundered; $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching)
Therefore, some wealth distribution is not all bad, when it is used to help the truly needy.
However, the fact is, the people getting the most wealth distribution is not the middle class and the poor.
The largest recipients of wealth distribution are the wealthy (as evidenced by the many examples below).
The wealthy get the most welfare in obscenely huge amounts of pork-barrel, subsidies, tax breaks, corporate welfare, regressive taxation, profits for illegal employers, bail-outs for banks and the wealthy, influence and control of a government that is FOR-SALE, and often can even avoid incarceration.
So when we are talking about wealth distribution in the U.S., it should be noted that the wealthy are getting more than their fair share.
Again, plenty of wealth distribution is coming to the wealthy by:
- Consider these top 10 subsidy programs for one state (e.g. Texas) 1995-2006:
- Rank ____ Subsidy ___________ Recipients _____ Total
- #01 __ Cotton Subsidies _______ 96,628 ______ $6,126,931,257
- #02 __ Disaster Payments _____ 144,923 ______ $2,410,774,724
- #03 __ Conservation Reserve ___ 37,769 ______ $1,759,118,624
- #04 __ Rice Subsidies __________ 5,619 ______ $1,325,261,031
- #05 __ Wheat Subsidies _______ 95,337 ______ $1,291,098,137
- #06 __ Corn Subsidies _________ 59,302 ______ $1,213,424,428
- #07 __ Peanut Subsidies _______ 11,680 ______ $491,103,948
- #08 __ Livestock Subsidies _____ 84,430 ______ $456,298,603
- #09 __ Dairy Program Subsidies ___ 2,586 ______ $92,836,865
- #10 __ Env. Quality Incentive ___ 12,036 ______ $80,298,602
Those are not mere claims for equality to disguise jealousy and resentment.
The issue is fairness, and if politicians really want to have a discussion about wealth distribution, let’s do it.
So yes … wealth distribution IS a serious problem in the U.S.
But NOT like some people think.
Most wealth is NOT going to the masses as some believe.
Based on the above, who are really the biggest recipients of wealth distribution?
So, who wants to talk about wealth distribution as it really exists, and where most of the tax revenues are REALLY going?
Who really wants to go there (i.e. trying to say the wealthy are getting soaked)?
Especially in view of those 13 reasons (listed above)?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Chief Justice John Marshall said it all in one sentence: “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
” It is not the money that is taxed away that is destroyed. What is destroyed is the wealth that does not get produced in the first place, because high taxes make its production not worthwhile.
Those who are receptive to Senator Barack Obama’s plan to increase taxes on “the rich” seem not to understand that the issue is the nation’s loss of wealth. Today, wealth can leave the country when heavy taxes threaten it— instantly, in an age of electronic financial transfers— and create jobs and economic growth overseas, instead of at home.
The two months between the time of a presidential election and the time when the new president takes office is an eternity in terms of how much money can be transferred out of the country electronically before any new high-tax laws can be enacted.
Like so much that is said glibly by Barack Obama, raising taxes on “the rich” has serious— and potentially disastrous— implications for the whole country that have been ignored amid the political euphoria.
Moreover, like so much that is proposed under the magic mantra of “change,” it is something that has been tried before in many countries and failed before in many countries.”
“The idea that you can single out one segment of society to be taxed or mandated, for the benefit of the rest of society, is reminiscent of a San Francisco automobile dealer’s sign: “We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you.”
Link; http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/29/taxing_times
Posted by: Jim M at October 29, 2008 01:14 PMd.a.n, the wealth gap is one of the major threats to the economy going forward. If I recall correctly, you have alluded to this in your own comments here. Why is an honest remark from Obama addressing that wealth gap now the target of your criticism? Why is speaking the truth on an issue “a dumb thing to say. It’s amazing that Obama would even whisper such a sound-bite (even if he truly believes it to any significantly large degree).”
When the top 5% of the wealthiest control, export, and use 40% of the nation’s wealth for the benefit of 5% of the population, and shape and control legislation to favor themselves further, is this not a threat to the nation’s economic future, which absolutely requires a strong consumer middle class? 60% of our economic activity is domestic consumerism.
Whether one agrees with some redistribution of the wealth through tax policy or not, it is refreshing for me to hear a candidate speak the truth as he and many others see it, despite the fact that it is an uncomfortable truth for that 5% of the wealthiest and their less wealthy supporters.
I see in Obama’s policies a balanced approach however, universal single payer health insurance relieves business and corporations of health care premiums, an enormous expense and reduction on business profitability and competitiveness, while at the same time, increasing their capital gains taxes somewhat and personal income tax rates modestly, to help defray the increased public cost of single payer universal health care insurance. Universal health care coverage will reduce bankruptcies by as much as 1 million per year. That too would be a boost for business.
It seems a balanced approach to me from an accounting point of view. Business would not be harmed or diminished as the move would be for the most part at least, neutral to their bottom line. The top 5% of the wealthiest would see personal income taxes increase somewhat, but not nearly enough to affect their current lifestyle in any substantial way. None would be losing their homes, cars, or art works. They would remain extremely wealthy and in the top 5% of the wealthiest in our nation.
In the old politics it may be a dumb thing for Obama to say. In the new politics of greater awareness by mainstream moderate and independent voters, the polls indicate it may not be such a dumb thing to speak such truth in a political campaign, despite the fact that it gives the opposition a talking point. But, its a talking point that McCain and Palin are using to rally their base, and their base were going to vote for McCain/Palin anyway just because they have the GOP stamp of approval upon them.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 29, 2008 01:14 PMFor the Founders, then, the individual’s existence and freedom in this crucial respect are not a gift of government. They are a gift of God and nature. Government is therefore always and fundamentally in the service of the individual, not the other way around. The purpose of government, then, is to enforce the natural law for the members of the political community by securing the people’s natural rights. It does so by preserving their lives and liberties against the violence of others. In the founding, the liberty to be secured by government is not freedom from necessity or poverty. It is freedom from the despotic and predatory domination of some human beings over others.”
“For the Progressives, freedom is redefined as the fulfillment of human capacities, which becomes the primary task of the state.”
“”Creating individuals” versus “protecting individuals”: this sums up the difference between the Founders’ and the Progressives’ conception of what government is for.”
“In the founding, God was conceived in one of two ways. Christians and Jews believed in the God of the Bible as the author of liberty but also as the author of the moral law by which human beings are guided toward their duties and, ultimately, toward their happiness. Nonbelievers (Washington called them “mere politicians” in his Farewell Address) thought of God merely as a creative principle or force behind the natural order of things.”
“The Founders thought that laws should be made by a body of elected officials with roots in local communities. They should not be “experts,” but they should have “most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society” (Madison). The wisdom in question was the kind on display in The Federalist, which relentlessly dissected the political errors of the previous decade in terms accessible to any person of intelligence and common sense.
The Progressives wanted to sweep away what they regarded as this amateurism in politics. They had confidence that modern science had superseded the perspective of the liberally educated statesman. Only those educated in the top universities, preferably in the social sciences, were thought to be capable of governing. Politics was regarded as too complex for common sense to cope with. Government had taken on the vast responsibility not merely of protecting the people against injuries, but of managing the entire economy as well as providing for the people’s spiritual well-being. Only government agencies staffed by experts informed by the most advanced modern science could manage tasks previously handled within the private sphere. Government, it was thought, needed to be led by those who see where history is going, who understand the ever-evolving idea of human dignity.
The Progressives did not intend to abolish democracy, to be sure. They wanted the people’s will to be more efficiently translated into government policy. But what democracy meant for the Progressives is that the people would take power out of the hands of locally elected officials and political parties and place it instead into the hands of the central government, which would in turn establish administrative agencies run by neutral experts, scientifically trained, to translate the people’s inchoate will into concrete policies. Local politicians would be replaced by neutral city managers presiding over technically trained staffs. Politics in the sense of favoritism and self-interest would disappear and be replaced by the universal rule of enlightened bureaucracy.”
“Today’s liberals, or the teachers of today’s liberals, learned to reject the principles of the founding from their teachers, the Progressives.”
“The idea of progress presupposes that the end result is superior to the point of departure, but contemporary liberals are generally wary of expressing any sense of the superiority of the West, whether intellectually, politically, or in any other way. They are therefore disinclined to support any foreign policy venture that contributes to the strength of America or of the West.
Liberal domestic policy follows the same principle. It tends to elevate the “other” to moral superiority over against those whom the Founders would have called the decent and the honorable, the men of wisdom and virtue. The more a person is lacking, the greater is his or her moral claim on society. The deaf, the blind, the disabled, the stupid, the improvident, the ignorant, and even (in a 1984 speech of presidential candidate Walter Mondale) the sad—those who are lowest are extolled as the sacred other.”
“The first great battle for the American soul was settled in the Civil War. The second battle for America’s soul, initiated over a century ago, is still raging. The choice for the Founders’ constitutionalism or the Progressive-liberal administrative state is yet to be fully resolved.”
Thomas G. West is a Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas, a Director and Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, and author of Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America (Rowman and Littlefield, 1997).
Link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/fp12.cfm
Posted by: Jim M at October 29, 2008 02:38 PMDavid R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, the wealth gap is one of the major threats to the economy going forward. If I recall correctly, you have alluded to this in your own comments here.That’s exactly right (I have), and stand behind it 100%.
David R. Remer wrote:Why is an honest remark from Obama addressing that wealth gap now the target of your criticism? Because Obama mischaracterized his own statement as needing to “spread the wealth around” instead of trying to “make a regressive tax system more fair”.
Obama’s mistake with “Joe the plumber” on the subject of taxation was failing miserably the golden opportunity to say that the current tax system is regressive and and unfair, and that he [Obama] is merely trying to flatten the percentages and make the tax system more fair. If Obama had said that, “Joe the plumber” would have probably agreed, as would most Americans.
Obama missed a golden opportunity to explain that the current tax system is regressive.
If enough Americans understood that, they almost certainly would side with Obama.
Obama shot himself in the foot again by mischaracterizing it as needing to “spread the wealth around”.
Also, I would not characterize fair taxation as spreading the wealth around, but contributing proportionately, which is not necessarily “spreading the wealth around”, since the wealthy also receive proportionately more of many tax-payer supported services (courts, legal system, etc.), not to mention the wealthiest 0.3% massively out-spending 99.7% of all other 200 million voters with 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.
Also, as I stated above:
d.a.n wrote: There is no proof yet that Obama will be overly socialist.
So, I have not condemned Obama of being socialist.
I am merely saying his statement was dumb (for very good reasons stated above).
David R. Remer wrote: Why is speaking the truth on an issue “a dumb thing to say.What is dumb is failing miserably (on the subject of taxes with “Joe the plumber”) to capitalize on the golden opportunity to say that the current tax system is regressive and that he [Obama] is merely trying to flatten the percentages and make the tax system more fair (instead of calling it “spreading the wealth”).
Obama mischaracterized his own position as “wealth distribution” when it is more accurately “fairer taxation”. As a result, that was a dumb thing for Obama to say.
Most people will probably agree with that (from BOTH political extremes).
Especially when the phrase “spread the wealth around” is just the sort of phrase Republicans are laying for and will latch onto, and use and abuse endlessly to extremes (which is another reason why Obama’s statement was dumb).
Also, what is of importance is the 10 major abuses causing that growing wealth gap.
The majority of Americans don’t need a hand-out.
They need to stop being cheated and hammered by those 10 abuses, causing these 17+ deteriorating economic conditions and a growing wealth disparity.
Obama missed that golden opportunity too (to point out the many abuses (among regressive taxation) that are hammering most Americans, and widening the wealth disparity gap).
David R. Remer wrote: When the top 5% of the wealthiest control, export, and use 40% of the nation’s wealth for the benefit of 5% of the population, and shape and control legislation to favor themselves further, is this not a threat to the nation’s economic future, which absolutely requires a strong consumer middle class? 60% of our economic activity is domestic consumerism.It depends on the reasons for that wealth disparity.
The reasons for the growing wealth disparity are these 10 abuses (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm).
Those abuses must be addressed.
Actually, 1% of the U.S. Population owns 40% of all wealth in the U.S.
The wealth disparity has been growing worse since 1976.
The wealthiest 1% of the U.S. population has 40% of all wealth in the U.S. (up from 20% in year 1980; never worse since the Great Depression).
The wealthiest 2% of the U.S. population owns more than the remaining 98% of all Americans.
The wealthiest 5% of the U.S. population has 60% of all wealth in the U.S.
The wealthiest 10% of the U.S. population has 70% of all wealth in the U.S.
The wealthiest 20% of the U.S. population has 83% of all wealth in the U.S.
The poorest 20% of the U.S. population has negative net worth (i.e. debt)
40% of the U.S. population has (on average) essentially zero net worth.
80% of the U.S. population has a mere 16%-to-17% of all wealth in the U.S.
David R. Remer wrote: Whether one agrees with some redistribution of the wealth through tax policy or not, it is refreshing for me to hear a candidate speak the truth as he and many others see it, despite the fact that it is an uncomfortable truth for that 5% of the wealthiest and their less wealthy supporters.David, it misses the point and fails to make distinctions between good and bad types of wealth distribution.
Also, as pointed out above, Obama mischaracterized his own position on taxes as “wealth distribution”, when it is more accurately “fairer taxation”.
As a result, that was a dumb thing for Obama to say, and also missed the opportunity to explain that the current tax system is regressive.
David R. Remer wrote: I see in Obama’s policies a balanced approach however, universal single payer health insurance relieves business and corporations of health care premiums, an enormous expense and reduction on business profitability and competitiveness, while at the same time, increasing their capital gains taxes somewhat and personal income tax rates modestly, to help defray the increased public cost of single payer universal health care insurance. Universal health care coverage will reduce bankruptcies by as much as 1 million per year. That too would be a boost for business.If Obama isn’t going to lower tax rates on all types of income to those for capital gains and also make them non-exempt from Social Security and Medicare taxes, then raising those rates is justified.
As for the universal healthcare system, don’t get your hopes up. Until those other 10 abuses are addressed, another vast government system will be as abused and mismanaged as bad as Social Security and Medicare are now. That is, unless such a system actually saves money, it will fail miserably.
David R. Remer wrote: In the old politics it may be a dumb thing for Obama to say. In the new politics of greater awareness by mainstream moderate and independent voters, the polls indicate it may not be such a dumb thing to speak such truth in a political campaign, despite the fact that it gives the opposition a talking point.Agreed. But it was an unnecessary problem, and gives ammunition to his opposition, since Obama mischaracterized his own position on taxes as “wealth distribution”, when it is more accurately “fairer taxation”. As a result, that was a dumb thing for Obama to say, and also missed the opportunity to explain that the current tax system is regressive. Remember, most Americans see a “flat percentage of all types of income” as the fairest form of taxation and they do not consider that “wealth distribution”, since we all also consume and uses tax-payer supported services to varying degrees too.
David R. Remer wrote: But, its a talking point that McCain and Palin are using to rally their base, and their base were going to vote for McCain/Palin anyway just because they have the GOP stamp of approval upon them.That’s right. That’s another reason. Don’t unnecessarily give your opponents ammunition, because they will naturally twist and pervert it way beyond what was truly meant (which was making taxes fairer). That’s also another reason I thought it was a dumb thing to say, despite the issues of good types and bad types of weatlh distribution. Posted by: d.a.n at October 29, 2008 02:55 PM
d.a.n said: “Obama’s mistake with “Joe the plumber” on the subject of taxation was failing miserably the golden opportunity to say that the current tax system is regressive and and unfair, and that he [Obama] is merely trying to flatten the percentages and make the tax system more fair.”
Excellent point!
The opposition however, has proved it will twist and pervert anything and everything to their advantage in a political campaign, all sides included. So, I don’t think Obama gave the opposition anything they didn’t already have, but, he did give a dose of truth to the center of the political spectrum, highlighting the wealth gap and stating that he will diminish it to some extent through his tax policy.
Your point is well made, however, that his point could have been more diplomatically made. I think though the words regressive and progressive mean less to more people than Obama’s message that those of great wealth have accrued too much for economic stability to prevail, and that needs remedying. It’s a plainer talk that has a wider audience comprehension capacity.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 29, 2008 04:04 PMJim M, poverty induced by political decisions and economic policy is an assault and violence upon those impoverished by such policies. A view your side rejects, which is why the populace is now rejecting your Party. In the natural world of sociology, balance will be achieved, as your Party is all too acutely aware of these days.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 29, 2008 04:07 PMDavid:
Sir, I owe and therefore offer you an apology. Last night I read your work up to the point where I quoted you. I did not finnish reading the article, but in the stead chose to post in the most haphazard and irresponsible way. After reading your article in full today I understand how you were framing your arguement and only now can I make an informed critique of it and offer a counter view. My post to you was made by taking the quotes you made out of context and going off on them. I was unfair in my actions and harsh in my words. I do this time and again, but I am truly sorry for the manner that I chose to act.
submarines, after years of blogging politics, I have learned that this is a common occurrence for almost anything I write by someone or another. I have myself responded to writing occasionally which was not thoroughly read and pondered. The fact that this is a rare occurrence in your replies, speaks well of you and our dialogue over time. Appreciate the feedback.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 29, 2008 10:21 PMDavid R. Remer wrote: I think though the words regressive and progressive mean less to more people than Obama’s message that those of great wealth have accrued too much for economic stability to prevail, and that needs remedying. It’s a plainer talk that has a wider audience comprehension capacity.Yes, Obama could have chosen much better words, since “spread the wealth” will be hammered mercilessly by his opponents (to no avail though, since Obama will most likely win the election anyway).
Obama should have then said the goal of taxes is to “spread the tax burden” more evenly or proportionately, because the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of gross income to federal taxes (such as Warren Buffet who 17.7% on $46 Million) while his secretary paid 30% on $60K.
________ Total Federal Tax on Gross Income ______________
35.0% |——————————————————— … ——-
32.5% |——————————————————— … ——- Buffet’s Secretary
30.0% |—————————-x—x———————- … ——- 30% on $60K
27.5% |————————x————-x—————- … ——-
25.0% |——————-x———————-x———— … ——-
22.5% |—————-x——————————-x—— … ——-
20.0% |————-x—————————————-x … ——-
17.5% |————x——————————————- … -x—x 17.7% on
15.0% |———-x——————————————— … ——- Warren Buffet’s
12.5% |———x———————————————- … ——- $46 Million in
10.0% |——-x———————————————— … ——- year 2006
07.5% |——x————————————————- … ——-
05.0% |—-x————————————————— … ——-
02.5% |—x—————————————————- … ——-
00.0% |xxx—————————————————- … ———-
_____$0K $20K $40K $60K $80K 100K 120K 140K … …$46Million …(GROSS INCOME)
The irony of the whole thing is that “Joe the plumber” will actually pay less taxes under Barack Obama’s tax plan.
Too bad neither McCain or Obama are serious about making the tax system as fair as is should be, such as implementing a flat percentage on all types of income and eliminate all tax loop-holes, and exemptions (e.g. cap on Social Security).
And that does not even include the massive subsidies, pork-barrel, corporate welfare, and welfare for the wealthy.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
@SE: It was a “rhetorical flourish”….that proves a point.
Uhh, no, it does not prove anything.
Posted by: EJN at October 30, 2008 09:37 AMAll you guys who are getting your panties in a knot about David’s referencing the military in the original post are way off base, as it were.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but he’s talking about all military expenditures, not just wages. He’s talking about the boneheaded expenditures of wheelbarrows full of money on weapons systems that do not meet the challenges we have now, such as SDI and the new nukes Gates is asking for.
And David’s right that our defense expenditures represent the best bad examples of wealth transfer from the middle-class and the poor to the extremely wealthy via the tax system.
The US spends more on defense than any other nation and we spend more that the next three top-spending nations. We don’t need to.
But enough is never enough for the wealthy defense vendors and contractors.
Posted by: EJN at October 30, 2008 09:44 AMAnd David’s right that our defense expenditures represent the best bad examples of wealth transfer from the middle-class and the poor to the extremely wealthy via the tax system.No doubt about that (growing wealth disparity and defense expenditures (about $630 Billion: www.federalbudget.com), and the following abuses which are why the wealth disparity has been growing fast every consecutive year since year 1976:
- (01) 40% of WEALTH OWNED by 1% of U.S. Population (never worse since the Great Depression):
- 45.0% |—x——————-
- 42.5% |-x-x——————
- 40.0% |x—x—————-x 40%
- 37.5% |—-x—————x-
- 35.0% |——x—x——-x—
- 32.5% |——x-x-x——x—
- 30.0% |——-x—-x—x—-
- 27.5% |————-x—x—2
- 25.0% |—————x-x—0
- 22.5% |—————x-x—0
- 20.0% |—————-x—-8
- 17.5% |————————
- 00.0% |—————+————YEAR
- ______ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
- ______ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0
- ______ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
- ______ 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0
- ________ \/
- ________ Great
- ________ Depression
- (02) regressive and unfair taxation;
- (03) illegal immigration: most politicians and all illegal employers of illegal aliens despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and (supposedely, but severely misplaced or false) compassion;
- (04) lawlessness; numerous constitutional violations; eminent domain abuse; election fraud; many politicians and many of the wealthy are above the law (pardons (archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/clinton.pardon/), commuted sentences, mild sentences, no indictments at all, etc.);
- (05) unnecessary wars and numerous irresponsible blunders;
- (06) incessant inflation ever consecutive year since year 1956;
- (07) a dishonest, inflationary, predatory, usurious, inflationary monetary system (an upside-down pyramid scheme), cookin’ the books, and many other manifestations of unchecked greed (resulting in record-level 10,000 foreclosures per day: One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Foreclosures); also, the government keeps changing the inflation measurement method (One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Measurement) to hide inflation (do you really believe inflation is only 5.37% ?
- (08) inadequate and undermined public education;
- (09) dangerous healthcare: Healthcare is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous too! HealthGrades.com reported (27-July-2004) that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”. Since 1999, that is over 1.5 million people killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the American soldiers killed in the American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), and the current Iraq war Mar-2003-present (3,963), combined!
- (10) plutocratic/kleptocratic, FOR-SALE government (One-Simple-Idea.com/OpenSecrets_DonorDemographics.htm) 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of federal donations of $200 or more; That is a plutocracy.
- (11) the size of the severely bloated (www.akdart.com/gov1.html) federal government has grown to nightmare proportions, and the waste and fraud is so massive, no one knows how bad it really is;
- (12) lawlessness, government corruption, waste, and incompetence (One-Simple-Idea.com/Links1.htm);
- (13) fiscal and moral bankruptcy; massive $10.6 Trillion National Debt; $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching; $67 Trillion nation-wide debt (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#NationWideDebt) that has never larger ever, both in magnitude and as a percentage of GDP;
- (14) the federal government and Federal Reserve are borrowing and printing new money to bail out banks, corporations, and Wall Street; the abuses and many manifestations of unchecked greed are already abounding; it must be nice to earn interest on money created out of thin air or borrowed from tax payers, irresponsibly lose much of it, and then get more money created out of thin air or borrowed from tax payers (not to mention billions for greedy CEOs salaries and bonuses); Cha Ching! And for all of that, Congress gives itself a raise 9 times between years 1997 and 2007 (www.congresslink.org/print_basics_pay.htm), while U.S. troops go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and are forced into 2, 3, 4, or more tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan;
EJN:
“All you guys who are getting your panties in a knot about David’s referencing the military in the original post are way off base, as it were.” You are correct and you are referring to me. Please read my last post on this thread and you will see that not only do I agree with you, but I apologized for it. I do believe that I can offer a counterpoint to his view, but I choose not to because I did a major disservice to David by partially hijacking this thread and getting it off of the point he made. David has a rare talent for provoking…..were I a better man he would be provoking thought from me, not emotion. The fault is mine. I do like David’s writing style, but I must learn to discern his entire thesis before I I attempt to counter any points he makes…he is a wordsmith.
I apologize to you, EJN, and to the other readers of this article. I have deprived you of a good discussion.
Posted by: submarinesforever at October 30, 2008 06:07 PMI worked as a waiter and got stiffed regularly. Except I never felt stiffed. I always understood it as a gratuity, an option for my winning their favor. Some people are just cheap. I’ve always understood that. Some people are rude. Often they are the same people.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 30, 2008 11:25 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to editor@watchblog.com.
