Say Anything Blog

[...] Trackback URL for this entry:http://haloscan.com/tb/rgion/113519925071616315Democrats Refer To Cheney As “The Grinch”Excerpt: Not sure if this is just a North Dakota thing or more of a talking point handed down from national Democrat leadership (kinda like how five minutes after the NSA story broke every single leftist commentator out there was referring to President Bush as...Weblog: Say AnythingTracked: 12.21.05 - 3:39 pm [...]

Now Rob, there you go again. dave and MI and woof and Don have patiently explained to you that people only have a right to abortaion. And prescription drugs. And housing. And condoms. And a minimum wage of $25. And child daycare. But definately they have no right to keep what they"earn"! How bourgeois of you.

Woof: Tax cuts put money back in everyone’s pocket.  The less you paid in taxes, the less you get back in tax cuts; it’s simple arithmetic.  You, as do most lefties, confuse tax rate cuts with total tax paid, in dollars.  You can get a tax rate cut, make more money, and end up paying more in total tax than you did in the previous year.  You still make more money.  It is the govt social engineering programs that take money out of our pockets.  If you want to pay less in taxes, scale back the power and scope of govt.  Works every time, and we will all be better off. Fostering class envy is an old marxist trick.  It’s a lie.  Getting someone else to pay more taxes doesn’t benefit you, unless you are a lazy sod on welfare.  Better you should get a job.  The “Clinton economy” was built on the Reagan economy(tax cuts), the dot-com bubble and negative savings.

After five years of tax cuts we are finally climbing back to Clinton economy numbers.

If only the fabulously wealthy have their tax burden relieved in a time of increased gov’t spending and huge deficits the rest of us will prosper. As Bush the Greater said, “Voodoo Economics.”

You are not going to convince me that taking money from my pocket so guys who own banks don’t have to take money out of theirs is in my interest.

If the fabulously wealthy do not pay, YOU make up the difference.

After five years of tax cuts we are finally climbing back to Clinton economy numbers.

You mean Republican House.

If only the fabulously wealthy have their tax burden relieved in a time of increased gov’t spending and huge deficits the rest of us will prosper.

Hey Rob! You’re “fabulously wealthy”.

Way to play the class envy card WOOF.

As Bush the Greater said, “Voodoo Economics.”

This isn’t an argument.

You are not going to convince me that taking money from my pocket so guys who own banks don’t have to take money out of theirs is in my interest.

This doesn’t jive with reality (no surprise there). Everybody who pays taxes got a tax cut. Any more bullshit you want to run past us WOOF?

If the fabulously wealthy do not pay, YOU make up the difference.

You’re full of shit WOOF. Now ignore the reality once again and give us your bullshit Marxist clap-trap.

WOOF gets it wrong again, Theory is not Reality. The tax burden has being shifted to the middle class.

And you use outdated and erroneous information to make your point.

What a joke WOOF. Now stick your Marxist head back in the sand and ignore the data once again.

Oh...and that “theory” is reality. You were wrong on that point as well. (Surprise, surprise)

Theory is not Reality. The tax burden has being shifted to the middle class.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002400.php

But they’re still paying more a percent of their income in taxes

Only on income taxes. You subsidized the wealthiests investment income.

Wages and other earnings are 71 percent of total personal income, but taxes on earnings make up 88 percent of total federal personal taxes.
In contrast, investment income is 22 percent of total personal income, but taxes on investment income are only 11 percent of total personal taxes. 
The 2.9 percent Medicare tax applies to all reported wages and self-employment income. The 12.4 percent Social Security tax applies to earnings up to $87,900 per worker. Overall, Social Security and Medicare taxes actually take a larger share of earnings (12.7 percent ) than do income taxes (10.7 percent). But investment income is exempt from helping to support Social Security and Medicare.

WOOF:

The tax burden [is] being shifted to the middle class.

LWOOF and I had a discussion about this a while ago.  WOOF suggested that 30% would be fair.  I dunna how you pull any number out of a hat without having better economic forecasting models to predict the outcome.  The law of unintended consequences comes to mind here.

If you give the wealthist some of their money back, it seems to me part of this ends up capitalizing smaller businesses, which in turn creates more jobs.  If you take away more from them, then maybe you drive up the unemployment rate, and this hurts the little guy more.

Leaving aside questions of what constitutes “fair"… it would be very interesting to see these numbers in say three years. 

Personally, I think the filthy rich should pay for my car and my house. They can obviously afford it, the misers.  Who cares whether I earned it or not.

Woof,

But they’re still paying more a percent of their income in taxes than you and I are, right?

Boy, what a Scrooge.

Rob: Don’t forget getting the AMA out of controlling the production of doctors. Restriction of supply drives up the price.

Well I know which side of that divide I come down on. I want to keep my money and use it to take care of my life and my family as I see fit.

People can’t afford health care?  Let them eat cake!

Woof: According to what definition of “fairness” should 1% of the population pay 20% of the taxes, when they receive no benefits from the taxes they pay, for the most part?  The wealthy don’t get any of the social engineering money, and they get only 1% of the benefit from defense spending.  How is that fairness?  I know you lefties really like to pull the fairness thing out when you get in a corner, so let’s hear it.
You don’t think it’s fair for businesses to charge “all the traffic will bear”, but you don’t seem to care about people being taxed based on their “ability to pay”, which is something you assume, btw, but don’t know.

2hotel9 wrote

dave (...) ha(s) patiently explained to you that people only have a right to (...) prescription drugs. And housing. And condoms. And a minimum wage of $25. And child daycare.

But you can’t. Because I never “explained” those things to anyone, because I never said those things. You lied when you said that.

It is not the government’s responsibility to pay our health care, Ryan.  And indeed, health care would be a lot more affordable were we to get back to a system where people, rather than faceless insurance companies, paid for their own care.

But you won’t understand that.  Just keep thinking of the government as Santa Claus.  Just there to provide you with what you need.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Woof: Investment income is after-tax income, and shouldn’t be taxed at all, to be fair.  Investment provides income for many in the middle class and the working class through capitalization of businesses that employ people.  If you want a job, do you go to a rich guy or a homeless guy?  The rich support us all through their investment, so stop whining and trying to kill the goose who lays the golden eggs!
Most of the wealthy don’t need Social Security or Medicare, and so shouldn’t have to pay for it at all, but have to pay anyway so that these Ponzi schemes can work at all.  Is that fair?

WOOF gives a Marxist grumble, Trickle down is an obvious con, pie in the sky.

Which is why “the poor” have a house, a car or two, television, cable, computer, house full of clothes and food, warmth, health care,…

Because “trickle down is an obvious con, pie in the sky”. We’re all so poor here in America. I mean, some people can’t afford cable. Oh! The inhumanity!

What a joke WOOF. Keep on ignoring it though.

By the way, WOOF, what is inherently unfair about wealth?

That is a good question for all Marxists, not just WOOF.

WOOF said, You subsidized the wealthiests investment income.

How? That doesn’t even make sense. I’ll tell you what I do subsidize though: your Marxist programs that I can’t opt out of.

Ryan G said, People can’t afford health care? Let them eat cake!

You spend so much time on this blog bitching when you could really be out there working for other peoples’ health care. What gives? Oh - nice Marxist class division Ryan. Kudos.

WOOF:

Fair as the top 1% have 40% of the countries wealth? The top 5% about 60% of the wealth, the top 10% about 70%.

By the way, WOOF, what is inherently unfair about wealth?  If people are smarter, make better decisions, they go farther than if they are stupid or make poor choices.  You keep answering questions with questions, but never state exactly what you think would be a fair breakdown.  At some point, you’re going to have to pony up and give a definition of “fair” as it applies to wealth distribution.

Do you prefer a system apparently where people are rewarded for being shiftless and unproductive and are punished if they are work hard and are productive?  We wouldn’t keep producing 25% of the worlds goods & services if we implemented that system.

Woof: They deserve what they earn, but they don’t deserve to have it confiscated for marxist social engineering programs.  You’re right about “trickle down”.  It’s really flow down; the “trickle” part is the con.  I notice you didn’t answer the question about getting a job from the homeless guy.  You want the govt to pick the wealthy guy’s pocket and give you a few cents on the dollar while keeping the rest for itself, but you won’t go directly to the wealthy guy, get a job, and earn your own fortune with your own effort.  Vote Democratic, it’s easier than getting a job.

: According to what definition of “fairness” should 1% of the population pay 20% of the taxes,

Fair as the top 1% have 40% of the countries wealth? The top 5% about 60% of the wealth, the top 10% about 70%.

Trickle down is an obvious con, pie in the sky.

WOOF:

Trickle down is an obvious con, pie in the sky.

Spoken like a true socialist, head buried in the sand.

Robert108:

Woof: They deserve what they earn, but they don’t deserve to have it confiscated for marxist social engineering programs. You’re right about “trickle down”. It’s really flow down; the “trickle” part is the con

At the risk of sounding like a “lap dog”, you are in rare form tonight!  Some great comments on this thread.

Carrick: Thanks! I appreciate the compliment. I just try to tell the truth as I know it.
likwid: You must understand that Karl Marx was a subscriber to the “zero-sum game” theory of wealth, in which, if one person has more, someone else, or a lot of someones, have less.  This is why they hate “the rich” when they are not intellectuals or some sort of royalty.  The reality is that there is an ever-growing “pot” in a free enterprise free society, so that everyone who is willing to do what is required can have more tomorrow than they have today, so the old Marxist ideas are out the window.  Lefties haven’t caught up with the truth about the Industrial Revolution yet.  They actually owe their thinking to a combination of the thinking of Ludd and Malthus.  IMO, Marx was trying to find a way out of the Malthusian dilemma without killing off a large part of the population. It is a cruel joke that 20th Century socialist dictators found it necessary to do just that to try to make their system work.

Fair as the top 1% have 40% of the countries wealth?

In 1998, the top 5 baseball players (or 0.7% of the total ‘population’ in the National League hit 10% of the league’s home-runs that year (276 for them out of 2565 for the league). 0.7% of the League has 10% of the homeruns. Is that fair? Shouldn’t they have only hit 0.7% of the total (or 18 homeruns)? The league would have been a lot fairer if Mark McGwire had only hit 5 homers instead of 70, right?

But, of course, Mark McGwire didn’t hit just 5 homers; he hit 70 because he was more talented than the competition. And that’s how capitalism works. Those who work harder than the competition deserve to reap the benefits of their work, whether that manifests itself in the form of homeruns (as it does in baseball) or wealth (as it does in the “real world"). It is, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, the only moral system.

I’ve often wondered how much better off I’d be if I’d spent my childhood studying the The Iliad instead of the 1964 St. Louis Cardinals’ pitching rotation… what a waste!

Check out a funny site dedicated to the absurdity and satire nature of saying “It’s All George Bush’s Fault!”

http://www.iagbf.com
http://www.itsallgeorgebushsfault.com

I hope that you don’t think this is spam. I really do think that you’d appreciate a site like this since we share the same idealogy. Hopefully you like it enough to blogroll

Regards,
Notta Libb

Smiling rubes with the big stuffed animals walking down the midway. Thinking they have won something.

Your money, their money, simple concept.

Dave: Your baseball analogy is slightly flawed.  McGuire hitting home runs on steroids is like Wall Street execs getting massive pay bonuses for firing 30,000 workers and shipping their jobs to India.

Rob said:  It is not the government’s responsibility to pay our health care, Ryan. And indeed, health care would be a lot more affordable were we to get back to a system where people, rather than faceless insurance companies, paid for their own care.

You know, that sounds like single-payer health care to me!

If there’s a fourth basic human right, it’s health care.  The measure of a nation’s compassion and wealth is how well it takes care of the people who are unable to care for themselves - when mothers have to choose between food or the hospital, it’s a terrible thing.

You seem to enjoy being taken for a ride by the medical insurance industry.  Personally, I don’t like getting screwed by big business.

You also ignore the economic aspects of single-payer health care.  Toyota recently decided to build a new plant in Canada instead of a souther US state because health care costs are so much lower in Canada.  Businesses - especially small businesses - are being taken for a ride by health care insurance costs.

The largest employer in the world, Wal-Mart, does not offer easy health care plans and instead pushes their employees to use existing government plans, straining them to the point of inneficiency.

Don’t tell me it’s not the government’s responsibility.  The government has a mandate to protect the common good.  Providing a system to pay for health care, as a basic human right, is the easiest way to support the common good than anything else.  (And it would be cheaper for taxpayers than it is now!  No Workers Comp, no Medicaid, no Medicare, no out-of-pocket expenses...)

And don’t worry, Rob - even Canada’s health care system is opt-out.

Ryan G. proselytizes, If there’s a fourth basic human right, it’s health care.

Rights aren’t derived from others (you have to get health care from others).

The measure of a nation’s compassion and wealth is how well it takes care of the people who are unable to care for themselves - when mothers have to choose between food or the hospital, it’s a terrible thing.

The measure of a nation’s “compassion and wealth” according to whom? You? Can I have a list of your dictates so that we’re on the same page?

You seem to enjoy being taken for a ride by the medical insurance industry.

Who are you talking to?

Personally, I don’t like getting screwed by big business.

If you don’t like the big business, then don’t buy. Simple as that. I am wondering why you support a big government now. Seems like a huge contradiction.

You also ignore the economic aspects of single-payer health care. Toyota recently decided to build a new plant in Canada instead of a souther US state because health care costs are so much lower in Canada.

Economic aspects of “single-payer” “health care” is also higher taxes. You ignore that.

Businesses - especially small businesses - are being taken for a ride by health care insurance costs.

We need to fix the insurance industry. One way endorsed by Rob and others is to pay for your own health care on the small things and have something called “catastrophic coverage” that covers the big items. For things like colds and stitches, you’d pay for it out of pocket or with your health savings account. Don’t get sick or hurt? You keep your money! This brings in incentive to stay fit.

The largest employer in the world, Wal-Mart, does not offer easy health care plans and instead pushes their employees to use existing government plans, straining them to the point of inneficiency.

I hear this claim a lot. Is there really evidence of Wal-Mart “pushing” their employees to use government socialist programs?

Don’t tell me it’s not the government’s responsibility.

Don’t tell me that it is the government’s responsibility.

The government has a mandate to protect the common good.

Where?

Providing a system to pay for health care, as a basic human right...

Health care is not a “basic human right”. Get that out of your head. You can’t demand “rights” from someone else. Rights are intrinsic.

...is the easiest way to support the common good than anything else.

Now we’re onto “support the common good”. Your true agenda.

(And it would be cheaper for taxpayers than it is now! No Workers Comp, no Medicaid, no Medicare, no out-of-pocket expenses…)

Taxes, more taxes, taxes, more taxes, taxes, discussions with government pinheads about “my” health care, taxes, realizing that the government holds the purse strings to “my” health care (the same government that you yourself claim you don’t trust; great logic there bro), and more taxes. No thanks Ryan.

And don’t worry, Rob - even Canada’s health care system is opt-out.

Shouldn’t it be opt-in? What kind of freedom is “opt-out”, but you must still pay the taxes for John Q. Fatass who is sucking down the donuts leading to expensive heart disease?

Will you just leave me alone or do you insist on taking my health care freedom away?

Dave: Your baseball analogy is slightly flawed. McGuire hitting home runs on steroids is like Wall Street execs getting massive pay bonuses for firing 30,000 workers and shipping their jobs to India.

Ryan:  Fee for services is 300 million-payer healthcare!  No insurance companies, no govt. 
You may consider it a “right” to confiscate my income to pay for your healthcare, but I don’t!
Single-payer healthcare appears to lower healthcare costs because it shifts them to the majority of people who aren’t using it.  Like all collectivism, it is a pyramid scheme. 
I think it is interesting that you know use of the govt healthcare system reveals its inherent inefficiency.  All those Wal-Mart employees pay taxes, so the govt system should work, but of course it doesn’t.  The truth is that all govt programs are inefficient by nature. 
The govt is us, in my country, so we are individually responsible for our own healthcare.  It is true that taxpayers are somewhat willing to support those who truly can’t support themselves, but not those who choose to be unable to support themselves.  This includes those who make bad life decisions, like having children early in life out of wedlock, not completing their education, choosing leisure over work, and the like.  This is the basic unfairness of your marxist thinking. 
Like all collectivist systems, Canada’s system is rife with lowered quality and shortages. If you want the best quality and the best supply at the best prices, you must go with free enterprise.  It’s a meritocracy, so those who go at it with more enthusiasm and skill will be more succssful, but there is enough for everyone.  Equal outcome is a marxist pipe dream. 
Oh, all the ball players had equal access to steroids.  Mark McGwire was still the best, steroids or not.  They just made him better. I’m opposed to steroids in sports, btw.  They don’t confer fundamental talent and ability, only enhance it.

posted

Ryan G:  Isn’t health care a personal responsibility?  It’s up to me to take care of myself, my children, no? Why is it up to some faceless bureaucrat using other people’s tax money?  I live in the US, not Communist China.  If you want rights, you have to take responsibility.

[...] What’s more amazing to me, outside of the mind-blowing amount of money we spend on these programs, is that any time anyone talks about cutting the amount of money we spend on them the political left in this country (joined by some big-government types on the right) start bleeting like a bunch of stuck pigs. Congressional Republicans just before the holiday break managed to pass legislation that would cut the rate of spending growth on some of these programs (note that it was not a cut in actual spending). What was that bit of fiscal responsibility met with? Cries of “Cheney (who had to cast the deciding vote thanks to a tie in the Senate) is a grinch!” “Republicans don’t care about poor people!” [...]

[...] Typical socialist Democrat promises. Accuse the Republicans, who are trying to exercise a small bit of fiscal responsibility of being “grinches” while simultaneously promising to give Americans more “stuff” in the for of tax-funded entitlements. In essence, Pelosi is saying “See America, we Democrats love you and want to take care of you while the Republicans hate you and want to take things away from you.” [...]