The Republican Thread

[Balta1701]

Roy Moore, the former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice who lost his job after erecting a monument of the Ten Commandments outside the state's courthouse, plans to announce in mid-April that he is setting up a presidential exploratory committee, an aide told CBS News.

 

The aide, Zachery Michael, said Moore's platform will be focused on repealing the health care overhaul law, replacing the progressive income tax with a flat tax and bringing "commonsense solutions" on immigration and border control.

 

Michael said Moore is entering the fray because "we're just seeing the same type of politicians run for president." He said Moore is someone "who can connect with over 300 million Americans across the country, which is something we've been lacking with today's leaders across society."

 

Michael said Moore should not be thought of simply as a culture warrior, arguing that he has been a strong advocate for limited government.

 

"He not only stood up for his faith, he stood up against the tyranny of government," he said.

 

Contacted by the Associated Press Monday, Moore stopped short of confirming that he would set up the exploratory committee, saying only that he is "considering" doing so and is being encouraged by supporters.

 

Moore traveled to the key early voting state of Iowa four times last summer, and he held rallies in support of the successful effort to remove three judges who voted to allow same sex marriage in the state. He plans to travel to other key early states, including Nevada, South Carolina and New Hampshire, following his announcement in April.

Link

[StrangeSox]

That's actually impressive. They wrote a whole article about how high-income earners are affecting state's revenue situation without ever acknowledging that having all of your income growth concentrated in the top 1%, while the remaining 99% stagnate or get worse, might be a bad thing.

 

Yeah, job well done.

 

The problem isn't the stagnant or shrinking middle class and lower wages for the poor, it's taxes on the rich!

 

Edited March 29, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

That's actually impressive. They wrote a whole article about how high-income earners are affecting state's revenue situation without ever acknowledging that having all of your income growth concentrated in the top 1%, while the remaining 99% stagnate or get worse, might be a bad thing.

 

It is a bad thing when you have built the house of cards on something that volitile.

[StrangeSox]

from the comments section:

Quote: “New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois—states that are the most heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy—are now among those with the biggest budget holes.”

 

Facts: This is not even competent cherry-picking. The most heavily-reliant states (see actual chart in actual article) are California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Those five states have deficits, as a percent of budget, that rank them as follows (1st is worst, 50th is best): California 38th, New York 20th, Vermont 6th, Connecticut 8th, New Jersey 2nd. Why do you suppose the writer rigged their list by throwing out California and adding Illinois (ranked #3, despite its non-progressive income tax)?

 

If taxing the wealthy is causing the problem, look at the states with zero reliance on income taxes on the wealthy. We should tax the rich like Nevada does(n’t)? No. It has the highest, i.e., worst, deficit ratio. Ok, maybe Florida? Nope, 14th worst.

 

Quote: "“A flatter, broader tax rate would help stabilize the most volatile of California's revenues.” --Tom McClintock"

 

Fact: Like it does in Illinois, which has a deficit problem four times as big as California’s? No, it wouldn’t.

 

And what’s with the laughable photo, and the reference to “a lanky, 6-foot-4-inch 58-year-old, with piercing blue eyes and a fondness for cycling”? Do tall, lanky, middle-aged cyclers, especially blue-eyed (hence white) male ones know more than other people about the economy? I don’t see why, but I do know that this one gets $109,313.76/year in state pension. (http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2011/03/please-dont-mention-their-pension.html) I wonder how much he pays in taxes?

[Balta1701]

It is a bad thing when you have built the house of cards on something that volitile.

Then the answer is to make it so that 400 people do not have more accumulated wealth than 150 million people, not to tax the 150 million people and let the 400 people off the hook.

[southsider2k5]

Then the answer is to make it so that 400 people do not have more accumulated wealth than 150 million people, not to tax the 150 million people and let the 400 people off the hook.

 

That doesn't fix the funding problem at all. If anything it builds the house of cards taller.

[Balta1701]

That doesn't fix the funding problem at all. If anything it builds the house of cards taller.

How does "spreading wealth around more evenly" not fix the problem?

 

The problem has nothing to do with the bulk of society being undertaxed, it has everything to do with an incredibly wealthy overclass.

 

Edit: let me say it another way. If a huge fraction of the nation's wealth is concentrated in the hands of only 400 people (which is currently true), then tax effectiveness is always going to be determined by the amount earned by those 400 people. You're not going to solve this problem by taxing the poor more.

[southsider2k5]

How does "spreading wealth around more evenly" not fix the problem?

 

The problem has nothing to do with the bulk of society being undertaxed, it has everything to do with an incredibly wealthy overclass.

 

The more you depend on "spreading the wealth around" aka making people's existence entirely dependent on a narrowing amount of successful people, the worse recessions get and the harder hit those now government/rich dependent classes will be. Not to mention the idea that taxes are going to create a middle class somehow is just insane. We've been doing this for like 75 years now, and all we have done is created a much larger dependent lower class instead of a functioning independent middle class. People don't move up the ladder from "spreading the wealth around". That is a myth.

[Balta1701]

The more you depend on "spreading the wealth around" aka making people's existence entirely dependent on a narrowing amount of successful people, the worse recessions get and the harder hit those now government/rich dependent classes will be. Not to mention the idea that taxes are going to create a middle class somehow is just insane. We've been doing this for like 75 years now, and all we have done is created a much larger dependent lower class instead of a functioning independent middle class. People don't move up the ladder from "spreading the wealth around". That is a myth.

Wait a second...the biggest jolt that the Middle Class ever got was the end of the 2nd world war. That was the largest, most stable middle class we've ever had, and that was associated with a 90% top tier tax rate.

 

As the top tier tax rate has gone down, as regulation of the financial industry has been dismantled, income has become more and more concentrated.

 

Do you really want to argue that the regulatory and tax systems on the top tier are more stringent right now than they were int eh 1950's? There have been peripheral changes (Medicare, environmental legislation) but on straight income and financial shenanigans, it's been the exact opposite direction of what you say it has been.

 

The thing I find jaw-dropping is that you're posting an article about how bad it is that states have to rely literally on the fortunes of less than a thousand people for their income because they so totally skew the nations' income distributions, but your conclusion is "those people should be taxed less and everyone else should be taxed more. That way their incomes go even higher".

[StrangeSox]

The more you depend on "spreading the wealth around" aka making people's existence entirely dependent on a narrowing amount of successful people, the worse recessions get and the harder hit those now government/rich dependent classes will be. Not to mention the idea that taxes are going to create a middle class somehow is just insane. We've been doing this for like 75 years now, and all we have done is created a much larger dependent lower class instead of a functioning independent middle class. People don't move up the ladder from "spreading the wealth around". That is a myth.

 

You've got reality backwards here. We do have a narrowing amount of "successful" people because our current system does a fantastic job of redistributing wealth to a very, very small handful of people in the country. Should I post the graph again showing average workers' earnings only going up 4.3% over the last 20 years? Or the graphs showing how all of the wealth generated in this country in the past several decades has been funneled to a few hundred/ thousand people while pretty much everyone else has been stagnant?

 

The idea isn't to confiscate wealth from the Übermenschen producers and give it to the looters. The idea is to stop the huge income and wealth disparity from continuing to widen in this country as we see those at the very tippy top take an incredibly disproportionate share of the wealth.

[StrangeSox]

The thing I find jaw-dropping is that you're posting an article about how bad it is that states have to rely literally on the fortunes of less than a thousand people for their income because they so totally skew the nations' income distributions, but your conclusion is "those people should be taxed less and everyone else should be taxed more. That way their incomes go even higher".

 

Well, it fits with the idea of giving ADM more subsidies and cutting food stamps is a better way to feed the poor...

[Balta1701]

Übermenschen producers

Really? That's your choice of words here?

[StrangeSox]

Really? That's your choice of words here?

 

It's a shot at Rand, though I guess I really don't know ss2k5's opinion of her.

 

eta: Rand ripped a good chunk of her philosophy from Nietzsche, even if she only ever recognized Aristotle (A=A!!!). Atlas Shrugged is more a less a description of her envisioned Übermensch, John Galt.

Edited March 30, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

It's a shot at Rand, though I guess I really don't know ss2k5's opinion of her.

At least in my head, I connected that much more to Nietzsche and indirectly to the concepts of Eugenics.

[StrangeSox]

At least in my head, I connected that much more to Nietzsche and indirectly to the concepts of Eugenics.

 

See my edit. Rand very clearly had a lot of Neitzsche in her philosophy. I realize that some other Germans used it too, but that honestly didn't cross my mind here.

[Jenksismyhero]

Wait a second...the biggest jolt that the Middle Class ever got was the end of the 2nd world war. That was the largest, most stable middle class we've ever had, and that was associated with a 90% top tier tax rate.

 

As the top tier tax rate has gone down, as regulation of the financial industry has been dismantled, income has become more and more concentrated.

 

Do you really want to argue that the regulatory and tax systems on the top tier are more stringent right now than they were int eh 1950's? There have been peripheral changes (Medicare, environmental legislation) but on straight income and financial shenanigans, it's been the exact opposite direction of what you say it has been.

 

The thing I find jaw-dropping is that you're posting an article about how bad it is that states have to rely literally on the fortunes of less than a thousand people for their income because they so totally skew the nations' income distributions, but your conclusion is "those people should be taxed less and everyone else should be taxed more. That way their incomes go even higher".

 

Here's my view of this whole thing. Tax the piss out of the rich. I have no problem with this. Maybe not the 90% tax rate we had before, but get it up to 50-60%, whatever. But at the same time, allow small businesses to flourish. Get people to be business owners again, not just workers.

 

You guys have posted all of these graphs about the rise in CEO/top 1% pay. I wonder what the correlation is to the "big box" stores and other large businesses gobbling up the smaller shops. Basically without the successful (though not insanely rich) business owners, their wealth has gone to a few people. I'd love for the government to somehow devise a way to make small to medium size businesses the preferable way to own a business. I think we'd get more people employed at better wages. Obviously you can't do it retroactively (forcing huge companies to become smaller), so maybe you just offer a ton of financial incentives for companies under a certain number of employees. I have no idea how we'd switch to that kind of economic system, but I think that should be the goal.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume that the greatest years for the middle class was back in the day when we had a lot more small to medium size businesses that were local or regional.

[southsider2k5]

Wait a second...the biggest jolt that the Middle Class ever got was the end of the 2nd world war. That was the largest, most stable middle class we've ever had, and that was associated with a 90% top tier tax rate.

 

As the top tier tax rate has gone down, as regulation of the financial industry has been dismantled, income has become more and more concentrated.

 

Do you really want to argue that the regulatory and tax systems on the top tier are more stringent right now than they were int eh 1950's? There have been peripheral changes (Medicare, environmental legislation) but on straight income and financial shenanigans, it's been the exact opposite direction of what you say it has been.

 

The thing I find jaw-dropping is that you're posting an article about how bad it is that states have to rely literally on the fortunes of less than a thousand people for their income because they so totally skew the nations' income distributions, but your conclusion is "those people should be taxed less and everyone else should be taxed more. That way their incomes go even higher".

 

Two things here.

 

#1. I never made that conclusion. YOU made it. I pointed out the simple fact that we have put more and more people on to depending on the government, with less and less people actually paying for that. When things go bad for that ever narrowing, and on purpose by Democratic plans, group, things for those dependent people are going to be worse.

 

#2 I am glad that earlier you finally acknowledged that change in philosophy that instead of social programs being a safety net like they are usually, that they are a straight up class warfare money grab. That has been the philosophical change here. The more people that are enslaved into social programs, the less people that can afford to vote against the party that supports them. It has been the trend for 75 years now. Its not about improving people it is about making them unable to move up on their own. If they somehow succeed, they are a part of some sort of evil elite that controls the world, and need to be punished for doing so.

 

Its not some sort of vast right wing conspiracy to keep people poor, it is a left wing one. If you limit opportunities for success, you limit chances to vote against the Democrats.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Here's my view of this whole thing. Tax the piss out of the rich. I have no problem with this. Maybe not the 90% tax rate we had before, but get it up to 50-60%, whatever. But at the same time, allow small businesses to flourish. Get people to be business owners again, not just workers.

 

You guys have posted all of these graphs about the rise in CEO/top 1% pay. I wonder what the correlation is to the "big box" stores and other large businesses gobbling up the smaller shops. Basically without the successful (though not insanely rich) business owners, their wealth has gone to a few people. I'd love for the government to somehow devise a way to make small to medium size businesses the preferable way to own a business. I think we'd get more people employed at better wages. Obviously you can't do it retroactively (forcing huge companies to become smaller), so maybe you just offer a ton of financial incentives for companies under a certain number of employees. I have no idea how we'd switch to that kind of economic system, but I think that should be the goal.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume that the greatest years for the middle class was back in the day when we had a lot more small to medium size businesses that were local or regional.

 

That is exactly where most small business falls.

[StrangeSox]

Can class warfare only be waged against the rich and not by the rich?

[NorthSideSox72]

That is exactly where most small business falls.

Small businesses are not taxed anywhere in the vicinty of 50-60%. And if they are being taxed at the same rate as high-income individuals, then either the business was set up stupidly, or the tax code needs to be tweaked to seperately classify business better, or both.

 

[Balta1701]

#1. I never made that conclusion. YOU made it. I pointed out the simple fact that we have put more and more people on to depending on the government, with less and less people actually paying for that. When things go bad for that ever narrowing, and on purpose by Democratic plans, group, things for those dependent people are going to be worse.

 

#2 I am glad that earlier you finally acknowledged that change in philosophy that instead of social programs being a safety net like they are usually, that they are a straight up class warfare money grab. That has been the philosophical change here. The more people that are enslaved into social programs, the less people that can afford to vote against the party that supports them. It has been the trend for 75 years now. Its not about improving people it is about making them unable to move up on their own. If they somehow succeed, they are a part of some sort of evil elite that controls the world, and need to be punished for doing so.

 

Its not some sort of vast right wing conspiracy to keep people poor, it is a left wing one. If you limit opportunities for success, you limit chances to vote against the Democrats.

1. Having fewer people bailed out by the government and more people paying for it would require more people to be able to pay for it. The society that has grown up the last 30-ish years is the opposite...the economic gains since the 1980's, and especially since the mid 90's, have gone to such a small group of people that maintenance of a reasonable standard of living has become more and more difficult.

 

2. I'm glad you finally acknowledged that the reason you oppose social programs has nothing to do with whether or not they're effective, or whether or not they improve the quality of people's lives, or whether it makes society better off or more equal, it's that you don't want people to vote for Democrats.

[southsider2k5]

1. Having fewer people bailed out by the government and more people paying for it would require more people to be able to pay for it. The society that has grown up the last 30-ish years is the opposite...the economic gains since the 1980's, and especially since the mid 90's, have gone to such a small group of people that maintenance of a reasonable standard of living has become more and more difficult.

 

2. I'm glad you finally acknowledged that the reason you oppose social programs has nothing to do with whether or not they're effective, or whether or not they improve the quality of people's lives, or whether it makes society better off or more equal, it's that you don't want people to vote for Democrats.

 

Because the rest of the nation is stuck on enslavement, er I mean, entitlement programs. These programs don't improve lifestyles. They stagnate them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Because the rest of the nation is stuck on enslavement, er I mean, entitlement programs. These programs don't improve lifestyles. They stagnate them.

 

Agreed.

[StrangeSox]

Because the rest of the nation is stuck on enslavement, er I mean, entitlement programs. These programs don't improve lifestyles. They stagnate them.

 

Yeah, it's not like the ultra-wealthy systematically exploit social safety nets to keep wages low and profits high!

 

But keep continuing to ignore the gigantic wealth gap. Ignore 400 people controlling close to half the wealth in the country. Ignore stagnant wages for decades for most Americans and sky-rocketing executive pay. Those aren't the real problems. The real problems are poor people on food stamps! They're enslaved somehow!

[StrangeSox]

Here's my view of this whole thing. Tax the piss out of the rich. I have no problem with this. Maybe not the 90% tax rate we had before, but get it up to 50-60%, whatever. But at the same time, allow small businesses to flourish. Get people to be business owners again, not just workers.

 

You guys have posted all of these graphs about the rise in CEO/top 1% pay. I wonder what the correlation is to the "big box" stores and other large businesses gobbling up the smaller shops. Basically without the successful (though not insanely rich) business owners, their wealth has gone to a few people. I'd love for the government to somehow devise a way to make small to medium size businesses the preferable way to own a business. I think we'd get more people employed at better wages. Obviously you can't do it retroactively (forcing huge companies to become smaller), so maybe you just offer a ton of financial incentives for companies under a certain number of employees. I have no idea how we'd switch to that kind of economic system, but I think that should be the goal.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume that the greatest years for the middle class was back in the day when we had a lot more small to medium size businesses that were local or regional.

 

I agree with the general vibe of this post very much. Wealth is being funneled in ever-increasing amounts to an ever-decreasing pool of people. That system cannot sustain itself.