The Waddler fears GOP “gangsters”
Jerry Nadler, known as “The Waddler” in some New York circles because of his grotesque girth, went on CBS’ “Face the Nation” (why is that show still on the air?) yesterday morning to summon the images of “Republicans as mafioso” in the minds of Americans (the two or three who still watch “Face the Nation”) qaccording to the Hill;
…”nice middle class tax cut you have there, pity if something would happen to it unless you give millionaires and billionaries” a tax cut. “Unless you give the wealthier a tax cut we’re not permitting the middle class to get it.”
Nadler expressed concern that Republicans will continue pressing Congress and President Obama for a permanent extension of those tax cuts and if we “succumb to blackmail” now why should there be any expectation that they will have the “political gumption in 2012 to not submit again.”
Hey, Jerry, it’s not a tax cut…it’s maintaining the status quo. To be against the current tax rates, you’re for a tax hike in the middle of an economic downturn. All Americans are equal, all Americans deserve equal treatment under the tax code. The President said that he’s doing what’s best for Americans. If you oppose the President’s tax plan, you’re doing what’s worse for America, right?
Howard Dean chimed in;
Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, argued that the tax bill “is terrible for the country in the long term” because the $857 billion plan isn’t paid for and continuing the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts will represent 60 percent of the deficit by 2018.
I’m lucky that my television has survived the last week or so the number of times I’ve yelled at it about putting those imbeciles in my house talking about “paying for” continuing our current tax policy. The American taxpayers have been “paying for” this shit all along so what are they talking about? I guess the Democrats in secure seats from New York and California haven’t been listening for the last eighteen months.
But if you want real class envy, you have to listen to Bernie Sanders who took the opportunity last week to bark at the moon on the Senate floor over the death estate taxes. I’ll probably never pay a penny in death taxes, but the idea that money which a person earns is his/her lifetime and is already taxed by the state and federal governments, is taxed again just because a person dies is just ludicrous, it’s unAmerican, it’s socialist, it’s insane. (Washington Times link)
Armed with giant charts and statistics galore, the Vermont independent argued that wealthy individuals, including the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune, are in a better position financially to shoulder more of the national debt and for that reason the estate tax should return to 2009 levels, or higher.
Firstly, Sanders isn’t “independent”, he’s a communist. And secondly, I doubt Sam Walton built his Wal-Mart empire so his kids could “shoulder more of the national debt”. If that had been in the front of his mind, I doubt the Wal-Mart stores would have ventured far out of Rogers, Arkansas.
Category: Congress sucks, Liberals suck
No one asked about how the demcong would pay for the Porkulus bill.
No one asked about how the demcong would pay for all that extended unemployment they keep handing out to bums who will wait to look for jobs if or when the unemployment gravy train runs out.
I could go on and on about the massive un-paid for debt that Obama and his demcong congress have run up in the last not even two years. But some of you get my point and the demcong neither grasp the reality nor care because it does not match their version of ethical governance. They believe all our money belongs to THEM.
I’m with Howard, Bernie, et al. “All Americans are equal, all Americans deserve equal treatment under the tax code”. Simply put, bulls**t. People who have been especially successful have to obligation to pay back a little extra (yeah, I know, communism, socialism, blah blah…). The middle class is in a death spiral, and the continuation of unconsciounable tax breaks for those that least need them is a recipe for an even worse disaster than we currently face. Don’t even get me started about corporate welfare.
“People who have been especially successful have an obligation to pay back a little extra (yeah, I know, communism, socialism, blah blah…)”
____________
Joe, would you train a guard dog, then beat the beast when he attacks an intruder? Don’t you see that you kill initiative when you penalize people for being successful? If the government came to me and said: ‘Because you have made enough money to drive a car, you now must take four of your neighbors to work every morning’ I wouldn’t make more money to get a bigger car to carry more neighbors — I’d ditch the set of wheels I had and take the bus!
For a system to be efficient, all the moving parts need to in good health. From a pragmatic point of view (forget about the morality of it for a second) having a large and growing percentage of your population living at or below the poverty level doesn’t help anyone, not even successful people like yourself. Ever hear the saying, “a rising tide raises all boats”? And no one is forcing you to pick up a bunch of hitchhikers. We’re just talking about a few percentage points in the tax rate for goodness sakes. If people are living so close to the edge that a few dollars more or less on their tax bill will bankrupt them, then they need to plan ahead a little better. One theme common to all the the people who want to perpetuate these unfair tax breaks is an inflated sense of their own importance. They forget about all the little people, the working stiffs, who made their success possible. Narcissism in action.
People who have been especially successful have to obligation to pay back a little extra
They already do Joe, the lions share in fact. What makes you the arbitor of other peoples income? If your idea of what someone else should pay in taxes is right then why is mine wrong?
I have no problem at all with paying my fair share in taxes. And I think you and I would agree that people should be prosecuted for avoiding their tax obligation. I’ll pick two areas that I take exception with to make the point:
1)I don’t like forced charity, and that is what our welfare system has become. I have no say in how that money is used; I am simply forced to pay out a certain amount, and what little I see of the return, I don’t like.
2) That ‘few percentage points,’ in my case, was going to be a 37% increase in taxes for me. I could have afforded that out of my income, and if that had been the end of it, I wouldn’t have complained. My problem with the projected tax increase is simply this: that extra 37% WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN THE END OF IT. I would have had to pay more in everything…gas, groceries, rent, utilities, clothes, medical care, you name it. EVERYTHING would have gone up. It’s THAT burden, not just MY tax increase, that would have been hard to adjust for, financially.
Y’know, reading about Japan and Germany, they have the right idea. While we look at economic numbers and statistics and point to the fleaws in their “socialistic” economies, they look at actual human beings. We laughed at their “numbers” and criticized their restrictive laws, but now who has the last laugh? Their economies are doing pretty well in the global downturn, and while we were crowing about our superiority a few years ago (how times have changed), Japan had universal health care, less inequality, the highest life expectancy and low rates of infant mortality, crime and incarceration, and they still do. What are we, 25th ininfant mortality? And of course dead infants don’t vote. Meanwhile we snipe and point fingers at each other, scramble for the few remaining crumbs while our country circles the drain. Man, what will it take for some people to wake up?
Japan? Ever hear of the lost decade….Germany? The same type of economy that is colapsing all over Europe. Ya, they’re gonna be able to help alot of people when they go the way of Greece, Ireland, and coming soon Spain.
The so-salled lost decade is a bunch of bulls**t promoted by the bankers and free market fundamentalists that want to fleece you, and you bought into it. Look at the actual quality of life of the average Japanese or German citizen compared to an American during the “lost decade”, not some abstract economic numbers, then come talk to me. It’s about people, not numbers.
We could easily derail on a conversation about Japan and Germany. I greatly admire both Japan and Germany, and the people of those two countries. However — I admire our freedoms more. You’re right when you say it’s about people; it’s people that make up the numbers. We are rapidly breeding a welfare state. When that system gets top-heavy, it will tip over. I don’t mind helping someone that needs help; what I mind is carrying them from cradle to grave, with them too lazy to do anything but hold out their hand.
Abstract economic numbers? How the hell do you rate quality of life? How you “feel” about your life? That’s easy to quantify…
And yet somehow, Pinto Nag, Germany and Japan, with their social programs (socialism?) are managing just fine while we are in a death spiral. Just a cultural thing? Americans are moochers by nature?
I feel very lucky, Old Tanker. Good job, great place to live, wonderful partner, clean air to breath, room to roam. For a lot of conservatives I guess that would be enough – let the others worry about themselves. But I still worry for the direction our country is headed (down), and I still feel for people who are poor, or sick, or bankrupt thru no fault of their own.
I’m not sure it would be accurate to compare Germany and Japan, laterally across the board, with the US. As you pointed out, they are both basically socialist in their controlling structures, both economic and governmental. Also, we have states larger than either nation. And we have far different immigration and naturalization laws than those two nations do. And I would point out that our nation is far younger than either of the other two. What you called a death spiral, I would call growing pains!
PintoNag,
You must be an eternal optimist, a glass half full kind of person…….
Actually, I am a maddening mix of both optimism and pessimism. There are times when I drive MYSELF crazy… 🙂
Joe, having spent a good chunk of my adult life in the Far East, and lately several trips to Europe, I can state unequivocally that you haven’t the first fucking clue of which you speak. Look at the cost of living in areas like Berlin, London, Paris, and Rome, for starters. Hell, look at places like Tokyo, then compare the average income and the purchasing power they have versus our cost of living versus income.
No comparison. I’ll take what I’ve got here, hands down. And the fact that deluded mouth-breathers who haven’t done a day outside your little socialist bubbles are going to tell me how fucking wonderful it is elsewhere, well, who the hell am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes?
Joey, Joey, you ignorant slut. Just kidding, Joey, kinda, but seriously, you moan about the bottom half of the country, constantly, and say in the same breath that “I’m with Howard, Bernie, et al. “All Americans are equal, all Americans deserve equal treatment under the tax code”.
Meanwhile, the top 50% of taxpayers in this country pay 97.30% of the income taxes. Or, to put it in terms even you can understand, the bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the income taxes, as of 2008. Is that not enough for you and the other welfare queens, socialists and other class warriors, or should the government just make sure that the top 50% pays the whole bill? So, let’s equalize the treatment of the folks who actually pay the bills. I’m all for that, but I don’t think you and yours really are.
I’m sorry, but this class warfare bullshit didn’t work for Russia, and we shouldn’t try. If you keep trying to “level the playing field” you end up with a field that looks like it came right out of 1918 France. Craters, and mud, not a blade of grass.
Like Sparky, I’ve been to Germany. I also have close relatives currently living in Scotland and England. Joe? You can NOT compare us to any of them, it doesn’t work. While you and those who see the world the way you do may look on their societies as something to be admired, my self and many others do not. They do not hold personal liberties in the same esteem that we do here, and their ‘collective’ tendencies frankly give me the shivers. There’s a reason Germany and Japan became dangerous, and more than once through out history, their people by virtue of their culture are easily led, not so here, at least not yet thank god.
UpNorth,
Skeptical about your figures, I’ll have to check them out for myself……
Start with irs.gov. That’s where they came from:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Oops. Sucks for you.
Joey…will they let you do that with your work computer? Ask your “partner” if he will buy you a computer of your very own on that December Holiday that you don’t recognize…go ahead, ask him by saying “pretty please!” Just want to help you out,would not want you to be freeloading on your taxpaying employers dime…just sayin…
Thanks, Sparky. I had to go out and shovel some more of that “global warming” out of my drive and so, couldn’t respond to Joey.
Waiting on how the figures “checked out”, Joey.
Something tells me we’ll be waiting quite some time.
Then why do numerous, well known, civic minded U.S. billionaires plead with the gov’t to raise their income taxes? Oh, that’s right, they actually have a sense of fair play and feel, for all their success, they owe something back . As opposed to the constant refrain from this crop of posters, “I, me, mine – I, me, mine…”
Um, Joe; Those “billionaires” are only idolized by those who don’t understand that we’re talking about income tax and not a net worth tax. Warren Buffet with his $30 billion net worth can afford to have his INCOME taxed. Even if his income was taxed at 99%, it wouldn’t affect his $30 billion. Millionaire politicians like John Kerry, Bill Clinton and the Kennedys can always champion income tax increases without endangering their own fortunes.
“Then why do numerous, well known, civic minded U.S. billionaires plead with the gov’t to raise their income taxes?”
Psst, Joe, the Rockerfellers, Fords, Soros, etc. put their $$$ in “Endowments” that are untouchable & they want people who are moving up in the business world to get taxed down several notches… This is a means to eliminate competiotion & keep us common scum at bay.
This time I mean it, Joey, you ignorant slut. If Buffet and the rest of the so-called “numerous, well known, civic minded U.S. billionaires”,/i> want to contribute more, they just have to write a check. Up to them, and as JAG said, they protect their money with “Foundations” and “Endowments”.
Meanwhile, still waiting on your response to my figures on who really, REALLY pays the taxes in this country. Cuz I’m pretty sure that it’s not who you think it is. Again, let’s let everyone get some “skin in the game”.
Plus, another issue to consider is that Buffet’s, et al, income is set up that it’s subject not to income tax which tops out at 39.6 percent, but as capital gains taxes which are currently at 15 percent.
Oh, and before you bitch and whine that we should raise capital gains taxes to match the marginal rate, consider that retirees who use their 401(k)s, stocks, etc., to provide their incomes are subject to…you guessed it…capital gains taxes when they cash out. We’re already seeing that jacking that tax will have a devestating effect on the markets.
And again, before you piss and bitch that only the “rich” have stocks, consider that over 50 percent of Americans have stock in some form, be it either directly or in the form of mutual funds, etc.
BTW Joe–nice tapdancing around the question. How about answering the first one, please?
UpNorth,
I see your figures – they show I pay about 14%, and the top 5% pay about 20%. Not a huge difference, I think the argument could be made the top 5% need to pay more. I suspect the top 5% in a European country with an actual safety net pay a lot more. Have to research it. But bottom line, we need to collect as much as we spend, and I feel the most fortunate or lucky among us (you might say the hardest working among us) need to pay more. They’re getting off easy.
To add, so the average income of the top 5% is over three times what I earn, but they only pay 6% more tax. Why not have them pay, well, over three times as much?
“They’re getting off easy.”
Before you can make that statement you have a more important job Joe, providing the evidence for your assumed moral authority to make that claim in the first place.
>But bottom line, we need to collect as much as we spend,
Tsk, Tsk… the more you are taxed- the less money you will spend. If you tax the wealthy more(who usually own businesses) then they have less money in which to hire the middle and lower class. You hire middle and lower class and the “man”(business owner) becomes productive & his business grows. The middle and lower class advance with business. It ain’t rocket science….
I feel the most fortunate or lucky among us (you might say the hardest working among us) need to pay more
==========
The most fortunate or lucky? Classic class warfare ignorance of how ‘the rich’ make their money. Liberals just assume all ‘the rich’ are lucky or fortunate and none of them worked to get to where they are. You probably also assume that everyone who is not “rich” is simply “less fortuntate” or “unlucky” and don’t believe that many people simply don’t take advantage of the land of opportunity that is the United States of America.
You also don’t realize that if you penalize people for achievement and give handouts to people who don’t achieve (“spread the wealth around” as our Pres__ent would say), that is an incentive to not achieve. That’s why socialism and communism fail. When you punish the achievers and reward those who do not achieve, you do nothing but give incentive to people to just sit around and take handouts from those who choose to achieve.
Let’s look at it this way:
Say you’re partner is pimping you out to the tune of 80 grand a year, Joe. That 11% nets only $11,200.
Yet Jonn here is counting his donations from Google ads and tallies 3 times as much income at $240,000. He’s taxed at $48,000 per year.
That is well beyond the 3 times as much as you he’s making. As a matter of fact, it’s nearly 4.3 times as much.
What about that exactly is fair?
*Your.
>But bottom line, we need to collect as much as we spend,
Tsk, Tsk… the more you are taxed – the less money you will spend. If you tax the wealthy more (who usually own businesses) then they have less money in which to hire the middle and lower class.
==========
Exactly. And if Joe actually believes what he stated there, then that means he must not have voted for Obama. Because Obama was never a person who believed in collecting as much as he spent. He was explicitly asked during the campaign about the Bush tax rate cuts which ended up bringing in more money than when taxes were raised. Obama answered that he was not interested in bringing in money, he was interested in “fairness”.
The fact is that the Left does not care about what actually works, they care about “fairness”. They do not believe in everyone having an equal opportunity to succeed, they believe in forcing those who succeed to hand over a portion of their money to those who have not — or choose not to — succeeded. The old saying is that conservatives are for spreading equal opportunity, while modern liberals/progressives are for spreading equal misery.
Many economists debunk the idea that reducing taxes on upper income earners will result in more jobs created and more spending to boost the economy. In fact, in the current uncertain economic climate, the wealthy are more likely to sit on the money than invest it or start a business or hire more workers. Some economists state that in our current situation, only Keynsian gov’t spending will dig us out of our deep hole. Trickle down never worked, it’s a scam promoted by – surprise – the wealthy. Only shoring up the shrinking middle class will return us to prosperity, maybe.
Pity-me entitlement mentality at its finest.
Many economists debunk the idea that reducing taxes on upper income earners will result in more jobs created and more spending to boost the economy.
==========
We don’t need to look at what “many economists” say. We just need to look at what happened when JFK cut taxes, when Reagan cut takes and when Dubya cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. In all 3 cases, there was job creation. During Dubya’s 2 terms, there was a record number of consecutive months of job creation.
Trickle down never worked, it’s a scam…
Wow. Just wow.
Only shoring up the shrinking middle class will return us to prosperity, maybe.
Yeah, and you do that by getting them back to work and you do that by creating an environment that is conducive for companies to hire and you do that by cutting taxes. It’s not that difficult a concept. It has been proven to work numerous times throughout our recent history, most recently from 2002-2007.
To add, so the average income of the top 5% is over three times what I earn, but they only pay 6% more tax. Why not have them pay, well, over three times as much?
AGI of $50,000 for a married (filing joint) couple with 2 kids, their federal tax burden is $1858.
Same family, AGI of $150,000, their federal tax burden is $25,188.
So no, they’re not paying 3X as much. They’re paying 14 TIMES AS MUCH.
You fail again.
First, Joey, who in their right mind gives a flying douche what the Euro’s do? It’s worked so well in Greece, Ireland, soon to be Portugal and Spain, so we should try it? How about we just sign a mutual suicide pact?
Second, you said, “But bottom line, we need to collect as much as we spend.” Nope, not at all. We need to spend only as much as we collect. You, and liberals in general, only see $ signs when you talk about tax collections, and not only can’t wait to run out and spend every cent taken in, but spend even more than what was confiscated, because, deep down inside, you(collectively) have never, ever met a give-away program you could resist.
School lunches evolve into 3 hots a day, next it’ll be cots for the recipients. Kindly explain how, when we have to micro-manage what kids eat because they are too fat, we also have to pay to slim them down? Food stamps? Hell, let em buy cars, visit casinos and go on cruises with their taxpayer funded debit cards. A responsible safety net? Nah, hell, give the serfs cradle to grave nanny statism, they’ll love us for it. Never mind that they’ll get so lazy, complacent and doughy that we’ll never be able to get them off their fat asses to do anything.
UpNorth,
Just for the record, I’ve never taken so much as 1¢ in assistance, aid or whatever, even when penniless. But you raise a good point – at what point does assistance to someone in need become mere enabling? I don’t know the answer to that. For some people, a little help might result in just the boost they need to become self-sufficient and successful. For people like you and me, freeloading is just unacceptable. For others, a little help might just make them more dependent. A successful guy I know (yeah, probably a top 1 percenter) mentioned that he had offered several people a job, and they declined because they still wanted to milk their unemployment benefits. So yeah, dependency is a very real problem. But so is having families out on the street or living out of their car because Dad’s job got shipped overseas. Or family members dying because they can’t afford insurance. So it’s not an all-or-nothing proposition. Personally, I think we’ve been asking the wrong questions. I would like to know why some people are bound to succeed despite setbacks, whereas others in a similar situation fold under the pressure, get depressed, get alienated, never recover. Or where the line between assisting and enabling lies, and how you determine that line with different people. Or how you give someone who’s been beaten down the incentive to dust themselves off and get back in the fight. These are not democratic or republican questions. They’re human questions. So I see what you’re saying, but I feel given the chance most people would like to be actively engaged in society, and I don’t think every single person out there is a deadbeat trying to live off the dole.
I would like to know why some people are bound to succeed despite setbacks, whereas others in a similar situation fold under the pressure, get depressed, get alienated, never recover. Or where the line between assisting and enabling lies, and how you determine that line with different people. Or how you give someone who’s been beaten down the incentive to dust themselves off and get back in the fight. These are not democratic or republican questions. They’re human questions. ========== The difference in philosophies between the modern liberal and conservative is that liberals want equality of result while conservatives want equality of opportunity. The fallacy of the liberal way of going about government is exactly as you mention here… everyone could have the same opportunity to succeed, but not everyone takes advantage of that opportunity. The result for everyone is not the same. But that is not the responsibility of government to guarantee the result. It is the responsibility to provide an environment that everyone has the opportunity. There is a reason people from all over the world have seen the United States as the “land of opportunity” and not the “land of guaranteed result of living off welfare” (though they might be feeling that way now). The fact is that it is not the responsbility of government to provide everything for the people. The government should do just enough to provide everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. After that, it is the responsibility of the individual to succeed or fail on their own. Some will succeed. Some will fail. It is not the government’s responsibility to guarantee that no one fails. It is the responsibility of the indidividual to take advantage of their opportunities given by this nation to succeed. Some people will only work minimum wage jobs and will live their lives poor. Some people will go to a trade school and learn a skill that will help them earn a middle class wage and live a middle class lifestyle. Some people will go on to college and do the same. Some people will go on to college… Read more »
Michael in MI, I think that is the most clear explanation of the differences in philosophy I have ever seen, and I enjoyed reading it.
Michael,
I also like your posts. I also read you I think on Ace also. I love how Lt. Col West(now Cong. West) said it.. “the government is there to promote the general welfare not provide welfare.”
Michael, great post, especially “Fairness is about opportunity, not about results”. Libs will never understand that. If you’re successful, you must have cheated, had it handed to you by some unknown, unseen someone or inherited it. If you aren’t, it’s because circumstances beyond your control kept you from succeeding.
I know I’ll hate myself for this, but Joey made a valid point.
There are some (many?) who won’t take a job, because it’ll screw up their unemployment bennies. Should they get the extension? Probably not. However, I doubt that there’s any way to know who passes on a job and who doesn’t, so the extensions go on, and on, and on. And, let’s just keep taxing those who can create jobs, after all, we have programs to fund, and pork to take home.
Great post, like PN and Melle said, love reading your posts.
[…] Fairness is About Opportunity, not About Result There is a good discussion going on in the comments of this post over at This Ain’t Hell regarding economic policy and tax cuts: The Waddler fears GOP “gangsters” […]