And the discussion of class warfare rages on.
Paul:
Mr. President, if your idea of “fairness” in “taking care of the American people” is class warfare, then maybe you should consider running for office in CHINA.
Thanks for your consideration, but we can take care of ourselves if you back off.
January 24 at 11:20pm near Abingdon.Derek:
Class warfare is certainly a hot phrase. Not quite sure I understand what specifically this President has done to garner that criticism. If you look at the history of this country the richest Americans have always paid more than the rest of society in income taxes. In fact in times of financial crisis, such as now, tax rates on the wealthy were increased as a way to stimulate economic growth but not incumber the lower classes financially. This was considered patriotic. The real class warfare is the fact that wealth is being accumulated at the very top of the food chain. If you look at the information since 1979 the top %1 percent of earners have seen their pay increase %277 while the middle %60 have seen their earnings increase %38. This drastic discrepancy is caused by the Reaganomics approach to the economy. Essentially giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy. Increasing taxes %3 on a segment of society that has seen an almost %300 increase in their pay is absolutely not “class-warfare”. It’s sensible policy. Currently and historically.
January 25 at 3:01amPaul:
The wealthy provide jobs. Maybe the intention was to stimulate the economy, however, it was, and is, an epic fail. What better way to stimulate the economy, than putting people back to work? Both those who are unemployed and underemployed. Instead, the President prefers to redistributing the wealth so that everyone has a “fair” and “equal” shot. In other words, putting everyone on the same level, and lending handouts, as opposed to allowing the free market to work as it should by the laws, and proven results, of economics. That, my friend, is socialism.
January 25 at 8:20pmDerek:
The wealthy provide jobs, the ultra wealthy do not. There is a huge difference. The “free market” caused the economic crash. There were no regulations on the housing market and that lead to the bubble bursting. If 22 months of job growth is an epic fail then you’re correct. Look at the numbers.
January 25 at 8:36pmPaul:
Yes, the numbers do show an increase in jobs. However, it does not take into consideration that the majority of those who are grossly underemployed, as well as those created by the government. It is not the governments job to create jobs. The more jobs they create, the more money and taxpayers dollars it will take to pay their salaries, resulting in a vicious cycle of spending money, that none of which have. This does not promote any economic growth whatsoever, but, instead, the already rapidly expanding government. More government = less freedom and rights for the American people. Might as well take the Constitution and use it as toilet paper. God forbid we might pick the wrong health insurance, the wrong food to eat, the wrong lightbulb, etc. Thank goodness Washington can protect us from making the “wrong” choices, by making them for us! This defies everything this country was founded on. We already belong to China, and we’re about to go down with Europe. STOP THE SPENDING!!!
January 25 at 10:03pmDerek:
The point is that at times like this the government does create jobs. Reinvesting in America is what we do . Look at the New Deal. We were in an economic recession and FDR reinvested in our infrastructure creating thousands of jobs in the short term and hundreds of thousands in the long-term. Obama’s economic policies were not created in a vacuum and in reality they have worked for this country extremely well before. Ask any economist with a brain where we would be if McCain won and got his way of freezing spending. We would be heading toward dark ages. The fact is that if we just “stopped the spending” when we were in crisis we wouldn’t have ever got out and that’s true now and historically.
January 26 at 2:03amEric:
Obama 2012
January 26 at 9:37amEric:
I think its crazy to assume that the highest earning Americans are the sole “job creators” in this country and we should support that by giving special tax rules. That’s buying into the propaganda to protect their bloated bank accounts. Someone who does NOTHING to contribute to society who was fortunate enough to inherit wealth pays a lower capital gains tax rate than someone who works every day of their life and is barely scraping by? How is that fair and patriotic? Having more money doesn’t inherently make you a smarter or more business savvy person with the capability of boosting our economy. Why don’t you raise the taxes on the rich, some of whom are making more money in a day than most make in a year, and lower middle class taxes to give 99% of us more ability to “create jobs”. Most people arguing against raising the taxes on the rich wouldn’t be affected at all, because they aren’t rich. And this whole argument of class warfare is over 3% in tax revenue? It’s absurd. The constitution says “We The People”, not “We, the upper 1%, of People”
January 26 at 9:49amEric:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america. The 99 percent. www.economist.com
January 26 at 9:53amPaul:
Of course the top 1% are not the SOLE job creators – you and I are living proof. In my opinion, FDR was the one who began this pattern of frivolous and massive spending. In what way does spending your way out of debt make any sense whatsoever? It doesn’t. It’s one thing to reinvest, but it is quite another to completely reinvent this country’s infrastructure, which is exactly what this president is doing. Forget the constitution, so long as the progressive movement is in motion I’m shaping the world closer to their hearts desire. What is 100% proven, is the free market economy. This government is completely out of control. It’s ideals defy common sense and the very things that made this county great in the first. As the government continues to rapidly expand, our forefathers are turning in their graves. Ultimately, and time will surely tell, that government job creation does far more damage than good. Sure, the “numbers” may appear outstanding now, but it ultimately inhibits economic growth. That top 1% pays the majority of taxes. Over half of the rest of us don’t even pay them at all. Why put a burden on those who could potentially create hundreds of thousands, of not millions, of jobs. They can’t hire because they fear what will result from this madness. Bit, have no fear, the government is here to take care of us, especially the middle class, by ELIMINATING it. The bigger the government, and more dependence the American people have on it, the closer we are to something that has been proven time and time again since the beginning of time – socialism/communism. But here on American, we prefer to call it “progressive”. What a joke. Ridiculous.
January 26 at 6:21pmPaul:
And socialism and communism are?
January 26 at 6:31pmPaul:
…and now joining our panel, ladies and gentlemen, the legendary, TIM TEBOW! TIM, tell us, what exactly would Jesus do?
January 26 at 6:33pmJack:
fun fact, communism actually describes a society devoid of a state or property, while socialism is the expropriation of means of production by the working class. neither of these describe an increase of government spending or higher taxes on the rich.
January 26 at 6:36pmDerek:
In my opinion FDR pulled us out of the biggest recession this country ever knew. Spending money by reinvesting in the infrastructure serves a dual purpose. It allows you to use money with the hopes of creating jobs in the short term, but what it also does is create a better environment for business to flourish in the long term. Essentially by providing a better infrastructure (highways, bridges, public transit, communication etc.) it provides better opportunity for private industry.
January 26 at 6:37pmJack:
but basically i’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why the working class is paying a 30% effective tax rate and we’re talking about how the rich are taxed too much
January 26 at 6:39pmPaul:
At this point, this is a lost cause. I mean is anyone here going to change their beliefs or opinions based on the arguments presented? Motion to close.
January 26 at 8:52pmEric:
It’s worth pointing out that communism and socialism are two completely different things. And raising taxes on the rich is hardly a leap into socialism, or communism for that matter. That’s a pretty far stretch of the imagination. I honestly wish our country was more “socialist”. Look at every other Westernized country on earth…America is never number one on any metric, other than our giant over bloated military. We are never the best, despite this conservative idea of American exceptionalism. Each one of these countries who are more “socialist” then us score higher in education, business, prosperity, happiness, health, etc. That’s a fact, despite what Fox News tells you. America is the only country among them where healthcare is considered a privilege and not a right. America is the only country that doesn’t invest in our own infrastructure, like green energy or high speed rail. Big corporations lobby against these innovations because it would negatively impact their profits. Why don’t we pay attention to the welfare of the country as a whole, rather than one corporations bottom line? If America is so friendly to capitalism, why do major corporations outsource to China, a communist country? It’s not because of taxes, as corporate taxes are among the lowest in history, and profits are among the highest. It’s because of cheap labor, resulting in more profit. Conservatives think liberals want big government to control the country, I think conservatives want big corporations to run the country. At least you can vote for people who take office, you couldn’t do that for Exxon after they spilled millions of gallons of oil in the gulf and then asked the federal government to pay for the cleanup. No recourse for them. They put out a few commercials to improve their public image, and people forgot about it. I wish Obama was a hardcore liberal as you think, he’s hardly a moderate. Spending to get out of debt is not the agenda of his administration. It’s preserving the infrastructure of what we have now, and investing in the future of this country. If we went through with all the tax cuts and “spending cuts” the Republicans wanted, the majority of those would negatively impact the middle and lower class while the upper classes still have their golden spoon. How dare us try to take a million dollars away from their billion dollar profit? If taxes are cut for the rich, then taxes for the rest of us go up…the revenue has to come from somewhere, and they’ll make sure it falls on the shoulders of the middle class. What people don’t realize is that if you let entire classes of people fall, the whole country topples as well. The phrase “you are only as strong as your weakest link” kind of applies here. It’s not about class warfare, or big government spending, or a welfare state. It’s about taking care of our citizens in need, and not coddling the most fortunate among us. There are always things that need improvement, but you don’t ditch entire social programs or groups of people because of that. You reform them. The upper class have the power to lobby Washington for their own political and financial gains, because they have the money to do so. Our economy and tax code are slanted unfairly in their favor. In America, the tax code is pretty regressive, meaning the more money you make the less taxes you have to pay. There are so many tax loopholes that the wealthiest of us enjoy, but we as normal everyday working people will never get the same benefits. Our country is supposed to be a democracy where everyone has equal say, not the person with the loudest voice or the most money. Money = free speech these days. You should be afraid of that. The middle class will never have the same rights as upper class for that simple fact alone. Socialism is not a political system. It’s the idea that everyone gets a equal crack at things, and everyone enjoys in the benefits of a collective society. It levels the playing field. On the contrast, what we have now is two classes of people: the rich upper class elites who run the show, and the working poor. That’s why people on the right hate guys like George Soros. By definition he’s a capitalist, and I know you cringe at that thought. He makes money in the financial sector by investing money. That’s the definition of a capitalist, and capitalism. He make money from investing money…and being a capitalist isn’t defined by your political affiliations. Conservatives think capitalist means someone who loves the idea of capitalism, the constitution, and hates liberals. That’s political re-branding of a word. George Soros has money therefore giving him power and influence, and a loud voice; but he just happens to support “liberal” ideas. That’s why conservatives demonize him. Not because he’s a bad evil person aiming for the destruction of America, but because he’s a threat to Conservative ideals. They don’t like it when someone has a political voice as loud as they do. Also, there has never been a such thing as a free market, there’s always been rules. I understand the utopian idea that everything will just “work itself out”, but that’s not how the real world works. If everything magically worked itself out I don’t think we’d be having any of these discussions now. The country of Somalia is a truly free market, and a libertarian paradise. All you have to do is Google it and you’ll see how well it’s working out for them. The free market needs regulations, otherwise its like a football game without rules or goal posts. The financial crash a few years ago was caused almost entirely by Wall Street deregulation. They were allowed to bet on derivatives against CDOs of bundled mortgages. This activity was illegal just a few years before. Bush deregulated it, giving them the ability to become “vulture capitalists”. Previously illegal wall street trading was deregulated and made legal, creating the bursting housing bubble and tanking the housing market as well as our economy, and the global economy. Yet people are cool with the idea of total deregulation? That’s fucking scary. The prosecution rests.
January 27 at 1:19pmEric:
Bill Gates, richest mofo, and a successful product of American capitalism, says taxes need to be raised for the rich.
“Even as the economy improves and you end the wars, you’re going to have to raise taxes and certainly, whatever form it takes, and I’m not an expert on this — the rich should bear a larger increase than the rest,” the billionaire founder of Microsoft told Fox News Thursday in Switzerland, where he is attending the World Economic Forum. “There is no strong correlation between job creation and what the tax environment has been at any point in time. If something’s a profitable activity, you’re going to engage in it.”
January 27 at 2:15pmPaul:
Your wish is in the process of being granted. Enjoy
January 28 at 5:05pm
