From the Politico (Pics added by B.S. Report)
By Ben Smith
"Rich people aren't paying enough to cover our mistakes!"
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a rare foray into domestic politics today, offering her view that — given America’s high unemployment — wealthy Americans don’t pay enough taxes.
“The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms,” Clinton told an audience at the Brookings Institution, where she was discussing the Administration’s new National Security Strategy.
Clinton said the comment was her personal opinion alone. “I’m not speaking for the administration, so I’ll preface that with a very clear caveat,” she said.
Clinton went on to cite Brazil as a model. (Read more.)
B.S. Report–Let’s get this straight: The economy bottoms out (largely because of government actions) but Hillary still believes that if you somehow manage to make a high income despite the recession that she and her gang of government thieves have first claim to your income.
Most of today’s Democratic Party do not believe in or respect private property rights–they believe that your wealth belongs to the government first and they decide how much you are allowed to keep. In a country where the top 1% of income earners pay 36% of the taxes, how can anyone suggest that the wealthy are not paying their fair share?
Eventually, even the rich are going to run dry...
I totally agree with Hilary and couldn’t disagree with your points more.
1. “The economy bottoms out (largely because of government actions)”
The economy bottomed out due to the massive Ponze Scheme that out economic system has become, mostly since the Reagan Neocons took power in the 1980′s. Was the government involved in this? Of course, but mostly due to the pressure from the right to allow business to go on as usual with the always republican supported laissez faire attitude.
2. The problem is not that the wealth belongs to the government, but that it disproportionetly belongs to the top 2 percent of the wealthy. And what do we hear from them? More dribble about the obviously failed Reagan (Raygun) trickle-down theory. The only place it trickles down to is deeper into their(the rich) pockets.
I seriously doubt that the person who this BS report can include him or herself in the ranks of the rich. It is just that he or she is being led to the slaughter by them.
Worldtake,
Economies always go through cycles and generally recover relatively quickly from downturns on their own, that is, if politicians will allow that to happen. But politicians usually can’t resist trying to manage the unmanageable.
Worldtake, I don’t know what planet you’re living on if you think that we are presently under-regulated and living in a laissez faire economy. We are enormously regulated to the point where our private sector is being strangled by a government that seeks to centrally plan our economy. Your view that it was Reagan and the Neocons that are responsible for our present downturn is just silly, conspiratorial nonsense.
Reagan believed in low-taxes and limited regulation but he actually allowed himself to be duped by the left into raising taxes in exchange for promised spending cuts which of course never occurred. It is irresponsible government spending that is largely our present problem and not simply a matter of too little regulation. Nearly 3/4 of all present spending would not pass Constitutional muster.
Anyway, how does handing over even more power and authority to the Federal Government to regulate the private economy solve these problems? Why would you trust the government to fix these things when its track record shows nothing but dismal failure, ineptitude and corruption? Just look how the government was largely responsible for creating the housing crash by their mismanaging of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. How can that give you any confidence whatsoever that government can fix anything?
Okay, I get it. You don’t like rich people and you want to confiscate even more of their wealth. Alright Worldtake, you’re the boss, what exactly is the right amount of taxation? The top 1% pay 39% of all taxes (Source: IRS latest data), the top 25% pay 86%, and the top 50% pay 90% of all taxes. That means that nearly half the population is paying no taxes whatsoever yet they can vote money out of the pockets of those that do. That’s a recipe for disaster.
As you rightfully conclude, I am not a member of the rich but I don’t agree that I’m being led to the slaughter by them. I’m just a person that appreciates freedom, both personal and economic, and I don’t envy or care how much money my neighbor earns, or how much wealth he or she has amassed as long as it was obtained through legal activities. I don’t share your “hatred” towards the so-called rich, or in fact, the tremendously wealthy. They cannot force me to do anything I don’t want to do. If I don’t want to buy their particular product or service, they can’t make me. However, the government can make me do certain things because they can throw me in prison if I refuse. I have no love for big business but that’s why I fear government far more. They are basically unaccountable and they are ignoring their Constitutional limitations. Thanks Worldtake for taking the time to write.
You said:
“Economies always go through cycles and generally recover relatively quickly from downturns on their own, that is, if politicians will allow that to happen. But politicians usually can’t resist trying to manage the unmanageable.”
So I take from this that you think the things that FDR did during the last big depression weren’t necessary and didn’t help? You don’t think we should have things like medicaid and social security? These programs came about because of regulations put on business. Since there is no conscience involved in free enterprise, as the only goal is profit, business needs to be regulated. If it were not, we would still have children working in sweat shops as they were before the government stepped in and stopped the practice. And the Economics you say will “generally recover relatively quickly”, ask somebody who lived through the decade of the the 1930′s and see how they feel about that. And this time? I predict that this one is going to make the depression of the ’30′s pale by comparison. Why? Because in that collapse and in all of the subsequent mini-collapses that regualarly occurred, oil and an economy runner, was there. As oil becomes more and more precious, the cost of it will rise the cost of everything, until only the very rich will be able to afford anything. This may sound extreme, but when you consider, that everything — and I mean everything is made of oil. It may not have oil in its composition, but if not, it took oil to produce it.
With our current consumption of oil, we will need the oil of three Saudia Arabias by 2030. Of course there possibly vast supplies deep under the sea, but the danger and cost of getting at them will only serve to rise the price of oil. As the reserves get lower and lower, those countries that still have oil will begin to hoard it more than they already are.
I talk more on this subject on my Ponze Scheme blog.
And yes, we were obviously under-regulated in at least one place and I don’t know how you could disagree with it. Somehow, you seem to blame the democrats for the current meltdown, and I agree partly — the blue dog democrats who laid down and let the right be lax on regulation during the Bush administration, so that lending institutions got away with making as many loans as they could without regard for whether they could pay them.
When I first became aware of this practice about two years before the meltdown, I wrote an op-ed to our local paper, predicting a total failure of our economic system within two years.
As for your figures on taxes, I need to do some research and consult some experts on those figures and I will get back to you.
I don’t hate the rich, but like I said, until I can get the statistics you used analyzed, I won’t comment further on that. I somehow doubt that they accurately present the picture.
Worldtake,
Yes, I absolutely believe that FDR’s micromanaging of the economy during the ’30′s prolonged the Depression by many years. That’s not just my opinion but that of economist Milton Friedman and the subject of several books that I’ve read from Jim Powell, Amity Shlaes, and Burton Folsom. I know they come from the opposite end of the political spectrum from you, but than so do I.
Even if you don’t trust these sources, would you trust FDR’s own Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr.? He played a major role in designing the New Deal and it was he who famously said: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot.” …And haven’t we seen similar results with Obama’s so-called “stimulus.”
As for your contention that it’s the Right that was more responsible for the meltdown than the Left; not surprising, we disagree there as well. I have no love for the spending habits of George W. Bush or any administration that spends money irresponsibly. That being said, the Bush Administration can’t hold a candle to the Obama Administration when it comes to spending. The latter has at least tripled or quadrupled spending! Also, it was George W. who wanted to toughen lending regulations over at Fannie and Freddie but he was rebuffed by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd who insisted that there was nothing to worry about at those two institutions.
Worldtake, there is no “free lunch.” There are many things that I’d love to have–but I recognize that I can’t pay for all of them. You can’t just “have” things like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It costs real money and taxpayers eventually have to pay for these services. Your blog is aptly entitled “Ponze” Scheme and that’s exactly what Social Security is: A Ponzi Scheme. First, there is no actual money set aside in a separate fund to pay for Social Security because that fund was long ago raided by politicians (starting with LBJ) of both parties to pay for other pet projects. It was originally sold as an “insurance” program but even FDR admitted that it was actually a tax.
Again, I don’t share your childlike trust in government. They react, they don’t lead. Unions played the pivotal role in getting employees better working conditions. It was not a movement led by government. And c’mon Worldtake, you don’t actually believe that were it not for government regulations, we would still have sweat shops today! There is such a thing as social stigma that would ruin any company that behaved that way today. It takes time for a country’s business practices to progress and we are passed the point of legal sweat shops in this country. Of course, that’s not the case in many other countries.
I don’t quite understand your disdain for capitalism and free enterprise. You say it’s because they have no conscience. Businesses and corporations, like governments, are comprised of people. We all know that people are fallible and therefore businesses, like governments, are amoral enterprises. However, when businesses are found doing harm at least they will have to answer to their customers and their stockholders, and perhaps face criminal charges if warranted. It’s far easier to hold a business accountable than it is to oust an entrenched politician–or prosecute a corrupt one. The job of any business enterprise is to provide a product or service that pleases their customers and provides a profit to their investors. To the extent that they do this they will be successful. That’s not hard to understand. And that success benefits all of us by supplying more jobs, more innovation, and resulting in a higher standard of living for each of us.
Capitalism is not a Utopia, but there is no such thing as Utopia on planet Earth. No one I know of is arguing for zero regulations–and it’s just not true to claim that there are no regulations. We have regulations upon regulations just as we have laws upon laws in this country. At this point I believe it’s rare when a new law or a new regulation doesn’t do more harm than good.
As a libertarian/conservative I do believe that Democrats are more to blame than Republicans when it comes to the current economic meltdown–but I’m no cheerleader for Republicans and their hands are also plenty dirty. However, in comparing the two parties, you would at least agree (wouldn’t you?) that Democrats’ philosophically believe in using the government to solve nearly all of societies problems while the Republicans believe in using government far less (or at least somewhat less) when it comes to solving problems. I’m a person who wants a less intrusive government and I believe the private sector is a far more effective vehicle in solving problems than the government; therefore, my only option is to vote Republican and do whatever I can to force Republicans to adhere to Constitutional limitations. Thanks again for your comment and the tone of your reply. All the best to you.
One thing:
All through the Bush years, the cost of prosecuting the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations was kept “off budget” and these colossal expenses were funded through supplemental appropriations. With the new administration, in order to present a fairer picture of the actual outlays by the government, Obama included the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan in the federal budget. So just be aware that when you locate some numbers, you are probably going to be looking at and comparing apples and oranges.
So this makes some of your numbers disingenuous.
And another:
You may think I am some kind of communist or something, but unlike what appears to be your view, I do not see the world in black and white, but in shades of gray. I believe in free enterprise, but it needs some controls. Every country in the world is socialistic to one degree or another and most of them also have a degree of democracy and free enterprise , except of course a few extreme examples. So, you disagree with any form of socialism in our government? You don’t think we should have public libraries? No member of your family benefits or has benefited from Medicare? Government grants for scholarships? Do you have any retired relatives that you have discussed this with?
I happen to be an expert on the subject from my first-hand experience of dealing with literally thousands of the elderly from all walks of life, a large majority of whom have worked their whole lives and are now on fixed retirement incomes and I can’t count the number of them who either cut back on their own medications or forwent eating so they could take their meds AND that because they couldn’t afford their copays, which were only a tiny fraction of the amount that medicare paid for doctor visits and meds. So, without medicare, NONE of these people would even be able to a doctor, let along buying medication. Do you advocate for just letting them all die?
And yet another thing:
You work as an engineer I think you stated. This is a real world numbers oriented profession and I am sure you are aware of the laws of thermodynamics and those laws — that cannot be broken — point out the fallacy of the notion that free enterprise should be totally free. The main mantra of the free enterprise system is continual growth — in fact, that is not a partisan position and you hear it from left to right. Continual growth of any system is impossible — No system can continue to grow and continue to function.
Worldtake,
I’m well aware of Bush’s many shortcomings and I make no excuses for his irresponsible domestic spending. I’m also aware that many people object to the wars against Islamic terrorism. I understand, and even share some of the objections, but ultimately I don’t agree that we should pull out and allow the Islamist radicals to increase their power and sway in these regions. But, back to the point, chastising Bush’s spending is not a valid reason to excuse President Obama’s incredibly outrageous spending and his trampling of the Constitution.
No, I don’t think you’re a Communist–and I’m not nearly as dogmatic as you seem to think I am, but by reading your posts it’s not a huge leap to infer that you believe in an enormous amount of federal power and control over our lives. That is the great chasm between your beliefs and mine–I believe in Federalism, layered government, individual rights and responsibilities, and the Founders’ now quaint notion that the federal government has very few and narrowly defined purposes.
You say you believe in a world with “shades of gray.” So do I–but not everything in the world contains gray–some things are actually black or white. Allegiance to the Constitution by individuals swearing an oath to obey and defend it should not be one of those “gray” areas. It is our laws that hold our civilization together. “Ordered Liberty” is fragile and when we allow our government to circumvent the Constitution and usurp our rights this will inevitably have grave consequences for our future freedom. We are beginning to see those cracks in our foundation right now. Our government was intended to be a servant of the people but we have allowed them to become our masters. To quote Mark Levin (and Alexis De Tocqueville), America has become a “soft tyranny.”
Worldtake, all those things you say you want government to provide individuals with can be done legally by amending the Constitution, or better yet, by allowing the individual States to provide their own populations with whatever services they vote to enact–and, of course, are willing to pay for. It was always the States (and local governments), and not the federal government, that was intended to play the central role in these decisions. It’s not the role of the President or the Congress to pass unpopular, nation-changing legislation through executive fiat or Congressional chicanery.
I have no problem with public libraries–they are funded by the states, and, here in California, much of their funding is voted on through ballot propositions. That way, depending upon the particular ballot initiative, I at least have a voice on whether I wish to expand or contract financial support for local or state libraries. Worldtake, your larger point is what in the world would we do without such services like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Well, what did we do?
Believe it or not, there was a time when these programs didn’t exist. After all, just 50 years ago most people did not have health insurance. And what did people do before the advent of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? (And let’s not confuse health insurance with health care–everyone in this country already has access to health care provided for them free of charge at any emergency room.) This may come as a shock to many but people were not starving or dropping dead in the middle of the street before these programs came along.
People used medical services less and they paid out of pocket for normal medical expenses like physicals, broken bones, or minor accidents. Medical care was relatively inexpensive and often people made monthly or even weekly payments that they arranged with their physicians. The idea that we now use health insurance to pay for regular doctor visits is counterproductive. It would be like using your auto insurance every time you took your car to the mechanic for an oil change. It’s simply not cost effective. A more efficient health insurance system could easily be constructed using catastrophic health care policies that most individuals could afford.
Worldtake, my criticism has nothing to do with the elderly or the infirm that rely on many of these programs. However, these programs themselves need to be restructured in a way that makes financial sense, that doesn’t bankrupt our treasury, and doesn’t allow the government to attack freedom by confiscating the justly earned wealth from one group of citizens in order to transfer it to another group of citizens to whom it doesn’t belong.
In America, there have always been social safety nets provided through various outlets. This was the advantage of our Founders’ (Biblical) vision of layered government. That is, each citizen was responsible for him or herself. However, if that individual was unable to care for himself or herself that burden would first fall on family members. If the family was unable, then that individual would approach friends and neighbors.
If the person was still in need, he or she would appeal to churches, synagogues, and local charities. After those institutions, one would appeal to the township, then the city, the county, the state, and finally the federal government–where all the citizens of the nation would chip in to help that one individual.
The federal government was the last resort, to be used only after all other avenues had been exhausted. Unfortunately, we have flipped that notion on its head and the federal government is now the welfare provider of first resort which has led to many dire developments. In no way am I arguing to renege on promises made to people who depend on programs like Social Security; however, we need to radically alter them because they are financially unsustainable and are contrary to the founding ideals of America.
Your point about socialism is largely true: There has never been a purely “free market.” Capitalism has never been completely “unfettered” even during the heyday of laissez faire prosperity. Without quantifying the exact amount of socialism that is “acceptable,” I prefer a society based on individual freedom rather than collectivism. Alas, we have veered mightily in the direction of far more intrusive and expanded government authority and control. And that is what we should be discussing–just what is the proper role of government in a free society? This is infinitely more important than such overblown issues as global warming or gays in the military. Government produces nothing–government spending is made possible only by first confiscating the private property (wealth) from those that do produce. And I’ll say it again–rules and regulation are necessary for an economy to function equitably, but, for the most part, those regulations have been in place for decades.
My attack is on the welfare state itself. Those of us who are critical of the welfare state and the massive expenditures needed to sustain it are called various epithets such as “heartless” or “racist” by the liberal, compassionate Left. It’s a bunch of nonsense and it avoids answering the crux of what our criticisms are really about. Ignoring for a moment the Constitutionality of many of these programs, our argument boils down to this: After all the money spent and all the programs enacted from the New Deal days of FDR to the Great Society programs of LBJ, on and on to the present day, just what has been accomplished? Are we better off as a nation for these programs? You may argue yes–that these expenditures were not wasted and are, in fact, fulfilling the original goals set down by these various programs’ sponsors. We differ in that but at least that would be honest disagreement.
But I would ask you Worldtake to defend these programs based on their actual results and not their original intentions. Did they achieve their aims? My contention is that most of these programs have failed–and failed miserably. It’s not that they haven’t solved the problems they were initiated to combat, it’s that they have made those problems worse. It’s time that we dismantle the welfare state by eliminating as many of the failed programs as possible–and, on the other hand, we’ll keep those programs, if any, that are working well. America is a great nation because it unleashed human freedom to a degree never before seen. The success of America was and is due to a free people able to pursue their own goals and happiness instead of having their lives determined by elites in power.
Worldtake, I appreciate our conversation and I wish you a happy and healthy new year. All the best to you.
You said: ” I’m also aware that many people object to the wars against Islamic terrorism. I understand, and even share some of the objections, but ultimately I don’t agree that we should pull out and allow the Islamist radicals to increase their power and sway in these regions. ”
And I assert that we — the western powers — are 100 percent responsible for the rise of radical islam. It was our dirty deeds during the cold war, starting with the very first CIA adventure in 1946 led by one Kermit Roosevelt to ensure the election of the western puppet, the Shah. A little background on this: In 1911 a British oil company discovered Iran’s oil. They then began to drill and England and that company, continued to reap almost all the profits from that oil until the mid 1940′s when some Iranians said enough and lets nationalize our oil so that we can benefit from it — imagine there gull, wanting to keep the profits from their own oil!. That is when the CIA sent a bunch of thugs, under the guise of fighting communism, to Britain’s aid and their actions caused the Shaw — one that they new would not nationalize the oil and in fact when elected did not — to become the puppet leader. During his entire reign, while most Iranians other than the ruling class lived in poverty, the puppet shaw lived the high life, while England continued to profit from their colonial misdeeds. During all this time, radical islamists built their power based on these misdeeds. We created the vacuum and the extremists filled it. History is one long tragic string of one group of extremests creating a vacuum and then that vacuum being filled by
another worse than the first. Another Example: Hitler’s rise to power followed the incredible vacuum created by the Treaty of Versailles, which offered no reparations to Germany after WWI — a clearly imperialistic war and I agree with your assertion that we should never have been there, just not that it was Wilson’s fault that we were there, as opposed to those — the captialists — who would profit from the war — and left the economic vacuum that the national socialists (nazis) filled.
You said:
“I have no problem with public libraries”
Well I don’t know why not, because they are as socialistic as you can get — completely not free enterprise whether it be state or federal, it is still socialism. Free stuff given to you by your government.
When did you go to an emergency room and get free care? Do we live in the same world. If you go to an emergency room and get care and you don’t have insurance, you will be paying out the nose big time — been there, done that. And I am well aware the way things were fifty years ago, as I was there and I doubt that you were. You are in a dream world if you think we can go back to the way things were then. I am telling you right now. If medicare stopped covering the bulk of retired persons medical expenses tomorrow, within a week you would see people start to die. I work with people who are on medication that they pay out of pocket $600, 800 and even $1,000 a month for THEIR PARTof that, which is a fraction of the actual amount. I see the problem of our rising health care as having two main causes.
1. Free enterprise — Doctors being doctors to get rich instead promoting health.
2. Free enterprise — drug companies getting rich instead of promoting helath.
Now you may think that I am for unlimited government spending, but I am not. I just really don’t see any way but lots of spending the way things are now. I doubt that you are a monster and would advocate for the death of millions, but cut off the spending to medicare not to even mention medicaid and that is what will happen. Along with the chaos that would be created by millions of angry baby boomers just sentenced to death, many of whom have well-stocked gun cabinets.
2+2=4
And I would also like to comment on an earlier post when you asked a question something like:
Couldn’t other ways like charities better do some of the things that government takes care of?
And I pose my own question:
You are an engineer I believe you said, could say a volunteer church-worker do your job? I mean, how hard could it be? What’s the big deal of having your professional certification. Anybody could do your work without training, right?
Let me tell you that there are trained certified professionals, like me, who work hard and efficiently at our federally and state funded jobs all over this nation and no matter how well intentioned church or any other volunteers are, they ain’t gonna be able to cut the mustard.
Worldtake,
I disagree with just about everything you’ve written in this post as well as your previous posts but I understand that there’s no way I’m going to change your mind (or your worldview) regardless of whatever counter-arguments I offer. And you’re not going to change my mind either. However, excusing Islamo-Nazi terrorism for their actions by blaming America (and the West) is particularly offensive. But instead of us both taking up a lot of time writing treatises, let’s just accept the fact that the gulf between our views is so vast that it’s probably best that we simply agree to disagree.
Also, I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m an engineer because I’m not. I own a small business that caters to seniors and the disabled. Worldtake, thanks for taking the time to comment.