|
|
Overcast ~ |
|
Conservatives, where were you when I needed you most?Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at 1:18 PM
Since before the 2008 election there were conspiracies floating around questioning the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate. Now it's devolved into semantics: "a certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate!!!" they say. I've addressed this silliness in a previous blog entry, so I won't go on at length; but it is interesting to note that since many of the right-wing pundits have added fuel to this conspiracy theorist fire, Republican officials are receiving some blowback.
Just recently, Republican congressman Mike Castle held a town hall in his district and lost control to a woman demanding (to loud applause) that he pay more attention to Obama's birth certificate. Here's the video:
Imagine how uncomfortable it would be for Congressman Castle to explain to his supporters that they are worked up over a manufactured controversy perpetuated by right-wing propagandists in attempt to undermine support for a popularly elected President. I think the end result would include tar, feathers, and a rail. But I digress... Now I ask, where was this rabid skepticism when we were told that Iraq was an imminent threat and stockpiling WMDs? Where was this flag-wrapped demand for proof when we were told that the Iraq war would pay for itself and the initial investment would be less than two billion dollars? For those who don't remember that promise, here's the video:
Imagine if the "birthers" had held the same passion for proof of WMDs, as they do for a birth certificate. Bin Laden might have been captured and we still might have some cash in the treasury. Now the big rage is all about Obama's deficit spending. Trillions of dollars in deficit spending and Tea Bag Parties all over the country protesting it. What's lost on the tea bag crowd is the difference between the spending of this administration and the previous one. The revenue cuts, wreckless spending, and corporate giveaways put us in this ditch. The spending we are doing now is the cost of getting out. Where were the tea baggers decrying socialism when Bush redistributed the wealth to the top 2%? Where were these folks when Bush gave billions of dollars in subsidies to Exxon Mobile, at a time when they were the most profitable corporation in the history of civilization? It would have been nice to have those protesters joining me in my outrage, instead of questioning my patriotism. For those who don't follow my thinking on this, here's my thoughts: Getting in the ditch: 1. Tax cuts for the wealthiest among us under the promise that tax cuts generate revenue. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts of the Bush years haven't paid for themselves. Link 2. Billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies for the most profitable company in history Link 3. Sending $12bn in unmarked, shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, with no oversight regarding who was receiving it and how it was being spent. Link 4. Allowing $9 billion of Iraqi reconstruction funds to go unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management. Link 5. Allowing $700 billion in bailout funds unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management. Link Cutting taxes during war, causing fuel prices to spike, ignoring the millions of families bankrupted by health care costs, and a litany of other things contributed to getting us where we are. Where was the tea bagger outrage back when Cheney said "deficits don't matter"? Of course, now that Obama has inherited an empty treasury and has no choice but to engage in deficit spending, Cheney has a real problem with it. Better late than never, I guess. Getting out of the ditch So now there's a cost to fixing this. And we have to borrow the money to do it. But government spending that actually does generate wealth is what we are starting. 1. Healthcare reform. 65% of all personal bankruptcies in this country are due to healthcare costs. Of those bankruptcies, 80% had health insurance. By investing in a public option, we'd eliminate much of that financial destruction and families would have money to spend on goods and services. Some folks are opposed to government health care programs. Ronald Reagan, in 1961, warned against the creeping socialism of Medicare:
The same was said of Social Security, which cut the elderly poverty level in half in only a decade. 2. Job creation programs. As an example, lets look at one of those terrifying big-government-pet-project-socialist-programs introduced to pull us from the depression: The CCC, also known as Roosevelt's Tree Army, was credited with renewing the nation's decimated forests by planting an estimated three billion trees from 1933 to 1942. So far reaching was the CCC's reforestation program that it was responsible for more than half the reforestation, public and private, accomplish in the nation's history. What it created: more than 3,470 fire towers erected; 97,000 miles of fire roads built; 4,235,000 man-days devoted to fighting fires; more than 3 billion trees planted; 7,153,000 man days expended on protecting the natural habitats of wildlife; 83 camps in 15 Western states assigned 45 projects of that nature; 46 camps assigned to work under the direction of the U.S. Bureau of Agriculture Engineering; more than 84,400,000 acres of good agricultural land receive manmade drainage systems; Indian enrollees do much of that work; 1,240,000 man-days of emergency work completed during floods of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys; disease and insect control; forest improvement - timber stand inventories, surveying, and reforestation; forest recreation development - campgrounds built, complete with picnic shelters, swimming pools, fireplaces, and restrooms. This is what I'm talking about: Using stimulus money to invest in physical improvements to the nation. The unemployed get work and a paycheck, consumption is stimulated, and the nation is physically improved. And this can be extended to programs like building an alternative energy infrastructure. So for those out there waving tea bags and shouting about government spending and "pet programs", it would have been nice to have had you when we needed you most. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Owner and founder of a liberal/progressive online news aggregator, former candidate for State Representative, media reform activist, internet communications consultant.
Hot topics A Socialist Party Platform(62 ~ 10:14 PM, Mar 7)
A Return to Fiscal Responsibility
Random Charts, Graphics, Facts and Observations
Dumbing Down America... One Hannity at a Time
Democrats Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory... again
|
What? 8 hours later and NOBODY has anything to say? No tepid attempts at rebuttal that contains mostly emotional noise and very little actual information? No screaming at the dirty liberal for all those horrid lies?
My my, I wonder if maybe the Westborro Baptist Church should come and protest the Le Mars Daily Sentinal? Y'all er gettin soft, yaknow?
Impossible to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, lol!
I don't understand redistribution of wealth to the top 2% under the Bush administration? According to 2006 Federal income tax information, the top 5% of taxpayers paid over 60% of the income tax collected.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2...
Well Dog,
Doesn't it seem fair that if you make more, you should pay more? And if you make more than 60% of the income in this country, doesn't 60% of the tax seem somehow, I dunno, what's the word, Fair?
Hi working_class_dog. I can't get that link to work, but I trust that your source is correct. What I'm talking about is the spike in earnings/overall wealth of the top 2%, contrasted with the decrease of income/overall wealth of those below that level.
If I can find the charts and data that I'm referring too, I'll post them. Thanks for asking me to clarify, I'm sure others were probably wanting clarification as well.
working_class_dog, Congressional Budget Office confirms that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest households. The tax cuts have boosted the aftertax incomes of the top 1% of households, with average incomes in excess of $1,000,000, by 10% -- compared with a 2.3% increase for middle-income families with average incomes of $57,000 and a 1.6% increase for the bottom 20% of families, with average incomes of less than $17,000. http://snipurl.com/nqt5e [www_businessweek_com]
I hated to quote that article, but I'm in a hurry and don't have time right now to find the actual CBO report. Maybe someone else would be kind enough.
I think the point Dog was making wasn't what percentage each millionaire paid, but that as a group, together they paid over 60% of all taxes collected. To me I think it implies that a small percentage of the population is paying a higher, and unfair percentage of the tax burden.
In other words, that the top 2% maybe outta be paying for about 2% of the over all tax burden.
Am i reading it correctly Dog?
you mention the tea bags. Do you think it is funny that many people would not participate because they didn't have a permit to protest? I wonder if the original tea party had permission!!!! Anyway, our rights are being slowly eroded away from us. Seems like every time a law is passed, another freedom dissolves a little more.
The tea bags and their symbolism fit in another way: size. the small little bags represent the level of committment to the protest, when the heat turns up, they dissapear...
Leslie, I'm not saying that the top 2% of earners should only pay 2% of the tax. I was pointing out that the often demonized wealthy are accused of not paying their fair share, when that is not the case. From the report in the link in my previous post, it notes the top 5% of earners marginal federal tax rate was 20.68%, while the bottom 50% of earners payed a marginal federal tax rate of 3.01%. Let me say that I am much closer to the bottom 50% of earners than I am to the top 5%. What percentage should the top 5% of earners pay and not be considered recipients of a transfer of wealth? I was just taking issue with TJ's assertion that there was a transfer of wealth to the top 2% under GWB.
Dog,
I truly do appreciate the opportunity to discuss fairness and taxes.
In my opinion, and as I have stated before, it seems reasonable to me that if a certain demographic, say the top 2% of the wealthiest wage earners, if they earn 60% of the nations wages, I'd assume a 60% tax would be quite equitable.
On the flip side, if I were among the bottom 50% of wage earners, I'd hope my tax rate would reflect this reality.
That all said. It's also my opinion that those who are fortunate enough to be among that elite 2%, I believe they have a certain obligation to the society that gave them the opportunity to be that fortunate, and to both help others have that same opportunity, and to help the society as a whole, including those that fail or are otherwise unable to help them selves. Because if the society suffers, then so do the elite 2%.
2006 numbers
Date of publication was 7/2008
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2...
*
Top 1% earns 22.06% of AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) but pays 39.89% of all income taxes
Top 1% average tax rate was 22.79%
*
Top 5% earns 36.66% of AGI but pays 60.14% of all income taxes
Top 5% average tax rate was 20.68%
*
Top 10% earns 47.32% of AGI but pays 70.79% of all income taxes
Top 10% average tax rate was 18.86%
*
Top 50 % earns 87.49% of AGI but pays 97.01% of all income taxes
Top 50% average tax rate was 13.98%
*
Bottom 50% earns 12.51% of AGI but pays 02.99% of all income taxes
Bottom 50% average tax rate was 03.01%
*
The Average tax rate nationwide was 12.60%
Thanks Dan, those are very useful numbers.
working_class_dog, I understand where you take issue. I've heard your argument before and I think it is a valid one. My point regarding the "transfer" was the trend resulting from Bush economic policy. Economists agree with the CBO that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest households. Now we can debate whether or not that is fair, but the fact that the benefits went to the wealthiest top percent while the middle class suffered home foreclosures, devastating health care costs, and rampant unemployment is what I'm talking about. I guess to break it down to simplest terms: The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
SourceTaxFoundation.org
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/3...
**Top 20% of taxpayers
$68,296 and above
*Before Bush Cuts
Share of tax liability 78.70%
*After Bush Tax Cuts
Share of tax liability 81.00%....(02.30% increase)
Share of Tax Cuts 67.70%
**Fourth 20% of taxpayers
$41,641 to $68,295
*Before Bush Cuts
Share of tax liability 12.60%
*After Bush Tax Cuts
Share of tax liability 11.60%....(01.00% decrease)
Share of Tax Cuts 17.50%
**Third 20% of taxpayers
$25,500 to $41,640
*Before Bush Cuts
Share of tax liability 05.90%
*After Bush Tax Cuts
Share of tax liability 05.20%....(00.70% decrease)
Share of Tax Cuts 09.40%
**Second 20% of taxpayers
$14,415 to $25,499
*Before Bush Cuts
Share of tax liability 02.30%
*After Bush Tax Cuts
Share of tax liability 01.90%....(00.40% decrease)
Share of Tax Cuts 04.20%
**Bottom 20% of taxpayers
$0 to $14,415
*Before Bush Cuts
Share of tax liability 00.50%
*After Bush Tax Cuts
Share of tax liability 00.30%....(00.20% decrease)
Share of Tax Cuts 01.20%
Thanks again Dan, much appreciated. You have clarified the process that led to the result. While the debate over the fairness of the tax burden can be debated, Factcheck.org has a pretty comprehensive, yet brief, summary of the net result of the Bush 2003 tax cuts here:
http://snipurl.com/ntsxp [www_factcheck_org]
T. J.,
I support completely eliminating withholding just so all may participate in tax cuts. Just think, then everyone would experience the joy of sending a check to the government quarterly. Might also cause folks to pay more attention to how that quarterly donation is spent.
Overtaxing families or businesses who are deemed wealthy enough already, won't eliminate the bottom 20% (the income range will just shift upward).
Remember President Johnson's War on Poverty?
Below is a short update.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/arti...
Dan
The first paragraph from the link you provided...
No, it's not the War in Iraq--it's the War on Poverty. Incredible as it may seem, Americans transfer more than a trillion dollars each year to low-income families through a bewildering variety of programs, all in the name of fighting poverty and inequality. That's about seven times the cost of the Iraq war.
First, the war on poverty has been in the works for some 40 odd years now. I wonder, what's a trillion divided by 40? The Iraq war has been costing us for about 5 years now. The Iraq war has also cost us, so far, more than half a trillion.
Now, all those things taken together, the article lacks credibility. I wonder if that number trillion was pulled out of thin air? Or are we also including programs such as head start and other public school programs, public health, police and fire? Public and National parks, public libraries and nearly all the other municipal goodies the unwashed masses seem to love so much?
Leslie,
Professor Browning plainly states we are now spending a trillion dollars "each year" in the quote you posted.
Why would you divide it by "some 40 odd years"?
He also states "To put a trillion dollars in perspective, it's more than twice our total spending on national defense."
I am pleased credibility is as important to you as it is to me. We can work together from now on to see that everyone uses neutral sources in their blogs and posts.
Here is a link to what others say about the site where I found my information..
http://www.independent.org/aboutus/sayin...
Yes, but but the Professor doesn't say what he's using to acquire that number with. Question. Exactly what is the yearly budget of the entire Federal government?
Credibility is always an issue. The problem is, and the reason we have something to disagree over, is that we may not agree on what is credible. Case in point, these numbers from Professor Browning.
Browning publishes his numbers in the article.
Federal budget link...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873746.h...
Show the numbers you feel are credible.