I know we've seen typical liberal think - for example, how tax cuts have to be "paid for" and how a tax cuts "cost us". Translation: Your tax money belongs to the government. A tax cut is them graciously giving it to you.

But I was reading the HuffPo yesterday (which I am sure comes as a shock to some here) and I came across this lead in to an article.

Robert Reich: The Truth About Obama's Tax Proposal (and the Lies the Regressives Are Telling About It) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/obama-tax-proposal_b_1661908.html)

To hear the media report it, President Obama is proposing a tax increase on wealthy Americans. That's misleading at best. He's proposing that everyone receive a continuation of the Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of their incomes. Any dollars they earn in excess of $250,000 will be taxed at the old Clinton-era rates. Get it?

Everyone is treated exactly the same. Everyone gets a one-year extension of the Bush tax cut on the first $250,000 of income. No "class warfare."

I kept re-reading it and thinking - does this guy understand anything? It's Robert Reich - he's no moron. But it sure sounds like it. Class warfare is pitting the rich against the poor. And I am sorry, but raising the tax rate for dollars earned above 250k IS class warfare - it IS singling out the rich. How in hell does this NOT single out the rich as scapegoats?

Moreover, studies of this approach reveal that not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will net about 80 billion dollars - enough to run Congress for less than a week and a half. It does NOTHING for the economy. So why do it? Except to punish the rich.

This stuff is simple if you just accept that this is the basis of that sort of thinking;

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Marxism.

Leaving any judgment of right or wrong, good or bad, aside for the moment, THAT is where the idea, that mindset comes from. If I make $25,000 a year and you make 10 times that, you can AFFORD to give back more it and should gladly come from you as it is for the betterment of the society as a whole.

The problem Marxism never reconciles is that, even if we impute the best of motives, it does NOT address how the receiver will most likely behave when given something and, of course, nor whether that is good or not and, most of all, what are those 'needs'?

Marxism, at the end of the day, is about violence. Capitalism ain't perfect but, a system set up where the power is supposed to PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide it, does, at least in principle, set a level playing field. Marxism has no interest in provide that field. It seeks to BE that playing field.

So, Reich, Krugman, they don't see taking more from those who have more as violence. They see it as fair and in keeping with a better overall society. They key is to get them to discuss the obvious; the results.

That doesn't happen much.

This stuff is simple if you just accept that this is the basis of that sort of thinking;


My thought is, how is it even consistent with LOGIC? This guy is no slouch. Summa cum laude, Dartmouth. Rhodes Scholar. Teaches at Berkeley. He's not dumb. He's brilliant. But in the first sentences of the article, he out and out contradicts himself and the rest of the article makes no sense. How anyone can claim that it's not taxing the rich to keep the tax cuts for everyone who ISN'T rich.

It utterly defies logic. Unless my logic is wrong.

My thought is, how is it even consistent with LOGIC? This guy is no slouch. Summa cum laude, Dartmouth. Rhodes Scholar. Teaches at Berkeley. He's not dumb. He's brilliant. But in the first sentences of the article, he out and out contradicts himself and the rest of the article makes no sense. How anyone can claim that it's not taxing the rich to keep the tax cuts for everyone who ISN'T rich.

It utterly defies logic. Unless my logic is wrong.

Communism isn't logical. I mean, it is but, it is built on a totally incorrect, in my view, premise of human nature. It states that Larry will do, should do, what is necessary to help Sam be it work in a factory, a field or pay more to the state for the good of us all. From there, if you start there, the rest is logical.

Capitalism says Larry will do what is in HIS interest and Sam will benefit accordingly by doing what is in his interest as Larry, the society, will thus benefit from what Sam is good at.

Listening to Reich over the years, that is the common theme I get from him, that he starts with his basic world view, as we all do. There are all sorts of secondary and tertiary arguments in favor of communism because of the excesses of capitalism but, to me, the solution isn't to kill the goose. It is to create conditions for more geese and that is something Marxism is NOT for. I think of myself, of capitalism, as being in favor of many small kings. Marxism and, frankly, the Bush families New World Order/Globalism shtick is about few enormous kings.

People like Reich never talk in terms of the rich spending more money and folks going to compete and earn those dollars. They talk and think in terms of what that central king can do with the money. Capitalism is messy and boring to great minds. It isn't capable of 'great' things in and of itself. There is something to that. From his view point.

The question then becomes what is worth doing centrally and what is not.

Moreover, studies of this approach reveal that not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will net about 80 billion dollars - enough to run Congress for less than a week and a half. It does NOTHING for the economy. So why do it? Except to punish the rich.

I don't think they are doing it to punish the rich, I think that they are doing it for the money. Using the 2011 budget numbers because they were the first that came up when I googled federal budget, the budget was 2,303 billion dollars (or 2.303 trillion dollars depending on how you phrase). You may not think 80 billion is much money but 80/2303 equal 3.4% so that would increase their tax revenue by over three percent. Not a ton, but for a government that is cashed strap its meaningful enough to be alluring.

I don't think they are doing it to punish the rich, I think that they are doing it for the money. Using the 2011 budget numbers because they were the first that came up when I googled federal budget, the budget was 2,303 billion dollars (or 2.303 trillion dollars depending on how you phrase). You may not think 80 billion is much money but 80/2303 equal 3.4% so that would increase their tax revenue by over three percent. Not a ton, but for a government that is cashed strap its meaningful enough to be alluring.

Well it is money - but for one, it's not the cash cow they're making it out to be. Actually, you should read the article the Post has on it today - they're pissed he's extending it at all, because it "spends" 160 billion for all those BELOW 250k. Funny. I thought the Bush tax cuts just helped "the rich". To hear Obama on the stump, there's a windfall of money if we only soaked the rich - the truth is, they'd make MORE money soaking everyone else.

But for another, the reason he's extending it is ostensibly for "the economy". Well, taking another 80 billion FROM the rich doesn't help the economy. It helps government.

And for what it's worth, it IS class warfare. Mr Reich is so steeped in his BS, he doesn't realize what he says makes absolutely no sense.

It utterly defies logic. Unless my logic is wrong.

He is not talking to you. He's talking to liberals who DO believe that your money belongs to the government, and that any dollar you earn takes away a dollar from someone else. If they were logical, they wouldn't be liberals.

He is not talking to you. He's talking to liberals who DO believe that your money belongs to the government, and that any dollar you earn takes away a dollar from someone else. If they were logical, they wouldn't be liberals.

I get that. I just don't know how he claims that Obama is NOT taxing the rich more - he's just extending the cuts for everyone below 250k, and that everyone who makes more, pays at the Clinton-era rate. That is, the rich pay more, they pay at a higher rate, but Obama is not raising their taxes.

That is utterly illogical.

This stuff is simple if you just accept that this is the basis of that sort of thinking;



Marxism.

Leaving any judgment of right or wrong, good or bad, aside for the moment, THAT is where the idea, that mindset comes from. If I make $25,000 a year and you make 10 times that, you can AFFORD to give back more it and should gladly come from you as it is for the betterment of the society as a whole.

While that idea is definitely stated in Karl Marx's writing ( From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need) ), there is also probably a practical element to targeting the wealthier---that is where the money at.

The problem Marxism never reconciles is that, even if we impute the best of motives, it does NOT address how the receiver will most likely behave when given something and, of course, nor whether that is good or not and, most of all, what are those 'needs'?

My guess is that Karl Marx addressed that by making very dubious assumptions that people will be just as motivated when not spurred on by money. Marx was obviously a fairly intelligent man, but he was just as obviously fairly naive about how the world works in many aspects.

Marxism, at the end of the day, is about violence. Capitalism ain't perfect but, a system set up where the power is supposed to PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide it, does, at least in principle, set a level playing field. Marxism has no interest in provide that field. It seeks to BE that playing field.

Capitalism is less set up to promote the general welfare and more set up to most efficiently use society's resources (including labor). However by producing the highest economic output by most efficiently using society's resources, capitalism very much has a tendency to promote the general welfare, .



So, Reich, Krugman, they don't see taking more from those who have more as violence. They see it as fair and in keeping with a better overall society. They key is to get them to discuss the obvious; the results.



The moral justifications for taxing are probably pretty complicated. I think you are definitely right that liberals do not see taxing as violence and that they do see it as fair and in keeping with a better overall society.

I personally have mixed views of taxing--I don't really see it as violence, but I am not convinced it is fair. There is definitely unfairness in a progressive tax.

I personally have mixed views of taxing--I don't really see it as violence, but I am not convinced it is fair. There is definitely unfairness in a progressive tax.

When I say violence it is in context of government power. You HAVE to pay taxes.

As for progressive tax rates, little is less fair. However, it's always easier to abuse a minority and rich people are not sympathetic characters. While they have a lot of money, the vast majority of money is in the hands of everyone else, the 99%. If what rich people did and paid mattered to the economy as a whole, it would be in great shape. So, in context of this debate, getting more money from the rich is not only poor thought and logic, it has the added negative of not even having the potential to work.

Tax rates for the rich is a silly debate.

I get that. I just don't know how he claims that Obama is NOT taxing the rich more - he's just extending the cuts for everyone below 250k, and that everyone who makes more, pays at the Clinton-era rate. That is, the rich pay more, they pay at a higher rate, but Obama is not raising their taxes.

That is utterly illogical.

Well, if you want your head to explode I'll set up a discussion on my FB with my uber-Left friend who is a die-hard Democrat and Obama worshiper, and he can explain it to you. :lol:

My guess is that Karl Marx addressed that by making very dubious assumptions that people will be just as motivated when not spurred on by money. Marx was obviously a fairly intelligent man, but he was just as obviously fairly naive about how the world works in many aspects.



That's generally my view about anyone who makes their bread and butter by writing about philosophy while living in a plastic bubble. They don't live in the real world. My observation about communism is that even in ideal situations - such as religious groups, who have extremely austere views and high principles about who deserves what - or in dire wartime, when men are fighting for survival against a common foe - the basic human desire for self-preservation usually trumps everything. POW's may show unity of purpose - but they will just as likely steal from one another.

My best example I know of is the book of Acts, in the Bible. These were Christians, sharing everything in common. You know how long that lasted? Less than a year, for certain. Oh they loved each other and shared everything. Until the money ran out. Until people started to get hungry. Then the widows and Greeks started getting the short shrift. Greed and prejudice won out. Eventually you find the Bible saying "he who will not work shall not eat".

What's odd is that Jesus himself not only taught that those who had been given more, more will be expected but also those who had been faithful in small things would be entrusted with greater things. Historically, few things work so well as rewarding hard work and punishing sloth.

My revulsion of communism is that in any system implemented, it's never totally even - there's always a stratum of persons who oversee the "equality" - and reward themselves as a result. For any multitude of virtuous principles, there's always someone deciding what those principles ARE. There are always rulers, kings, parties - you're not helping society, you're serving the party. It's serfdom with good PR.

Tax rates for the rich is a silly debate.

Obama is arguing raising taxes on those earning over $250,000 would raise something like $800 billion over ten years. Well, for starters, $250,000 ain't rich anywhere in this nation and is just getting by in places like the big cities. These people spend every dime just like Jane and John Schmoe. It's not sitting in trust funds or under mattresses.

So, how it would do the nation any better if Washington spent it instead of upper middle class folks is already a dubious proposition.

Further, what the hell is $80 billion a year? That's maybe $1,000 a year for a family of four, a $.50 an hour 'raise'. You could put that back in people's pockets, and then some, by simply getting oil down to where it needs to be in order for any recovery to begin.

If gas stayed at $1.80, where it was when Obama took office, we, the people, would have well in excess of $1 trillion more in our economy over his 3.5 years. This is to say NOTHING of the savings in costs of everything that high oil caused to go up.

If oil has had only a 5% annual hit in terms of higher prices on GDP then that is another trillion plus. And this is dollars that go overseas and stay there for the most part.

Tax rates are NOT our problem.

Well, if you want your head to explode I'll set up a discussion on my FB with my uber-Left friend who is a die-hard Democrat and Obama worshiper, and he can explain it to you. :lol:

No thanks. I have enough of those. You can't discuss anything with such persons, because they feel free to make up their own facts and dismiss verifiable ones as false. I have relatives like that, and they're not just Democrats.

I use the term "invincible ignorance". (It means something different to religious types). I use it to describe people for whom facts are meaningless, because they choose their own truth. There's only one solution to such arguments - walk away.

Tax rates are NOT our problem.

Stossel has a good article today on this.

Budget Insanity | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/11/budget_insanity_114758.html)

Every once in a while, I come across a comment in an article on HuffPo that goes something like, if we just never did the Bush tax cuts, we'd be paying off the debt in no time.

(pause)

After I stop my laughing fit and get off the floor, I think - seriously, what kind of idiot actually thinks they ever intend to pay off the debt? The only REAL surplus we've had in my life occurred briefly in the Nixon administration. They don't pay off debt in Washington. Ever. Give them more money, and they will find a way to spend 125% of it.

What's worse is we get people like the current administration who blame THEIR OWN SPENDING on George Bush - because they believe he didn't spend the money that should have been spent on other things - so their spending spree is, after all, HIS fault.

Stossel makes an astonishing claim in the end of the article - read it. Is that right? Is it that easy to bring spending to heel?

Further, what the hell is $80 billion a year? That's maybe $1,000 a year for a family of four, a $.50 an hour 'raise'. You could put that back in people's pockets, and then some, by simply getting oil down to where it needs to be in order for any recovery to begin.



I read somewhere that oil costs a mere 15-20 dollars a barrel to produce. Incredible. I don't get how demand can drive it up so high, since there seems to be no shortage of oil.

Stossel makes an astonishing claim in the end of the article - read it. Is that right? Is it that easy to bring spending to heel?

Yes, it's that easy. In a mathematical sense. And that does NOT address waste, fraud and abuse.

Imagine, if you will, a proposal before the congress to freeze spending for 10 years AND that any new programs we 'have' to have simply come from savings in current spending. How many of us would vote for that?

This is why I jump all over the Les Evil rational for voting one way or another. It's STILL wrong. Incrementalism, baby steps, Les Evil, call it what you will ONLY works one way; a little more here, a little more there. That's why the left is so successful. They demand 10 more and settle for 5 and call the other five a cut and demand 15 the next time because we didn't get out 10 last time and settle for 7 1/2. And so it goes, ALWAYS moving the ball forward at least a little in their view.

The problem is that the GOP is totally on board with this now. They just want to be the quarterback. We never freeze spending let alone demand a cut of 10 and accept even 1.

This is why actually caring about politics is futile. What we need to do, freeze, a few real cuts, it simply doesn't and won't happen.

I like that Stossel points the finger where it belongs; at we the people. We CAN fix it but, we don't want to. Not really. We just want ours and screw the nation and screw everybody else.

My thought is, how is it even consistent with LOGIC? This guy is no slouch. Summa cum laude, Dartmouth. Rhodes Scholar. Teaches at Berkeley. He's not dumb. He's brilliant. .

So his academic credentials make him brilliant? Isn't it possible that he can be both intellectually accomplished yet, still be dumb as all hell? From what I read, this is more the case

I don't think they are doing it to punish the rich,



661pi6K-8WQ u24nH03NccI