“Inequality gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder.”- President Barack Obama
"This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in"- President Theodore Roosevelt
Roger Wade
yeah teddy......
Brian Barcomb
Noticed your first quote. The problem he fails to mention unions. Unions play a very large role in our country's political landscape by forcing membership and then using dues to promote politic figures and ideology that maybe contrary to members beliefs. Also the President continuously mis-speaks when he says "democracy". The United States is a Republic. TDR was more of a Progressive than Conservative. IMHO, the single best thing he did was to lead the battle to set aside land as National Parks
Brian Barcomb
Ironic.... a friend of mine made this post tonight and you commented on Mr. Obama and TDR. " Have you noticed that the 20th century presidents most trupted when you were in school were the liberal/statist. Teddy Roosevelt, imperialistic statist. Woodrow Wilson, anti-semite statist. FDR, war-time statist. LBJ, mega-statist. Only Kennedy was not particularly statist. By comparison, we were taught next to nothing about conservatives like Coolidge."
Terrell Shaw
Good Lord, Brian. Are you going back to the old John Birch fight. Of course we are a republic which is a representative form of democracy. I know of noone who advocates a "pure" democracy. Let's not get all twisted up in semantics.
Terrell Shaw
Your "statist" language is quaint.
Our history is replete with examples of the tension between the "common welfare" goal of the Constitution and the "blessings of Liberty" goal. Teddy Roosevelt and Barack Obama are excellent examples of men who adamantly demanded we balance the two.
Brian Barcomb
Free enterprise, free markets, and competition without government interference..... Less government involvement in individual freedoms and less entitlement programs
Terrell Shaw
I suppose you've heard my "moderation" sermon, but I can't help but preach it one more time. I am a firm believer in the notion that evil lurks in the political extremes. Unfettered capitalism (pure greed) is evil. Unfettered socialism (statism) is evil. Most of us agree on that. We have a devil of a time agreeing on where to place the fulcrum to achieve a balance. In my opinion the fulcrum was moved too far right about thirty years ago, causing an extreme redistribution of wealth toward the 1%. That's an imbalance that will wreck the republic, IMO.
Tersi Bendiburg
Agree with you, Terrell in the "evil lurks in the political extremes..."
Brian Barcomb
According to the IRS, the top 1% of income earners Pay more than 38% Of all Federal Income Taxes while earning 20% of All income. The bottom 50% of all income earners (less than $33k) Earned 13% of All income And paid less than 3% Of federal income taxes. The whole "fairness" doctrine has to be thrown out the window when debating taxes and redistribution of wealth. Telling the top 1% that they must pay more taxes (when they already pay the lion's share) so the bottom % can pay less is a flawed argument. Redistributing wealth from the top 1% will only harm the economy even more. It will force American made $ in tax sheltered accounts in foreign countries vs investing in the US economy and it will also shift jobs out of the US.
Terrell Shaw
If your argument were true the economy would have tanked in the fifties, sixties, and seventies when the top rates were much higher, or even in the nineties when they were considerably higher than now. The fact: highly progressive tax rates have not hurt the economy in the past. The Bush tax cuts on the other hand nearly wrecked us.
Progressive tax rates do not stifle entrepreneurs. Tax cuts to the wealthy do not "trickle down.
Those who gain the most from the blessings of this wonderful country should shoulder a much higher percentage of the financial load.
Terrell Shaw
BTW the tax cuts that do help the economy are those given to the middle class such as the one the GOP is fighting right now. Middle and lower classes actually spend their small "windfalls" and thereby goose the economy.
Thanks for the debate, Brian. Gotta sleep so I can teach tomorrow -- provided I don't get fired for arguing with one of the guys that hires me.
Brian Barcomb
no...no...no... Primary difference in political opinions and beliefs..... A personal who prospers from sweat, blood, and hard work should not have to pay a higher percentage than an individual that *choses* to live off entitlement programs. A person that works hard and sacrifices for the American dream should not be penalized. The person that lacks the desire to further their lives and choses to live off gov't $ should not be rewarded. "trickle down" is a matter of economics. If you tax the 1% we are speaking of even more, the less money you will have in the economy. That money will not be reinvested in the economy. Less money in the economy will equal an increase in Consumer prices and inflation.
Brian Barcomb
Haha... Always love a good political debate. Have a great day tomorrow!
Terrell Shaw
Again, a main difference is your seeming belief that people profit only from "sweat, blood, and hard work". That is part of it and should be rewarded, but is only part. The highway system, justice system, postal system, sewage system, education system, military system, trash disposal system, etc., etc. and many more etc.s are also involved. The rich owe a much larger debt to society... and will still be hugely richer than many equally sweating, bleeding, hard-working folks of lesser means. I don't want communism, that doesn't work. But I do support what I consider a moderate progressive tax. That is what truly raises all ships as it did in my youth. A strong middle class makes America strong. G'nite.
Tersi Bendiburg
@Terrell. No. No communism, please, that's why our family left Cuba. Very, very scary.
Terrell Shaw
That's something Brian and I can agree on, Tersi.
Duane Parsons
Brian, et al: It looks like your IRS numbers may be correct, yet many of us (me especially) have no clue about percentages, so I looked up the dollar value. Taxpayers with an AGI (adjustable gross income) of $159,643 or more in 2009 constituted the nation's top 5 % of income earners. To break into the top 1 %, a tax return had to have an AGI of $343,947 or more, which was 10 % lower than the 2008 threshold of $380,354. The income threshold to break into the top 0.1 percent also fell dramatically from 2008 to 2009, from about $1.8 million in 2008 to $1.4 million in 2009.
“In 2009, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 36.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 16.9 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI), compared to 2008 when those figures were 38.0 percent and 20.0 percent, respectively.”
“…as in 2008, the top 1 percent no longer pays a larger percentage of total income tax than the bottom 95 percent. …. During 2009, the bottom 95 percent (AGI under $154,643) paid 41.3 percent of the total collected, a larger share than the 36.7 percent paid by the top 1 percent (AGI over $343,947).”
Some are still trying to dismiss concerns about rising inequality as somehow foolish. But the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake. I am sure the tax fairness debate will go on, but I still find it difficult to understand why so many 99 % conservatives are fighting the battle for people making over $343,947 a year when some undoubtedly must be liberals. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
No comments:
Post a Comment