Thursday, December 21, 2006
Selling Ronald Reagan Republican Ideals Out
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that President Bush (W) is getting ready to support a tax increase on the rich. Oh my God, what a mistake! Jim Pinkerton, fellow Stanford alum, thinks this will destroy "what little remains of his Presidency." I couldn't agree more. Pinko Pinkerton (I call him that as he is to the left of me politically, although still a solid conservative) likens it to the father Bush's reneging on his "read my lips" no new taxes pledge and thinks the Democrats will get what they want without real blame if our current President allows it. I prefer to be in denial.
I'm OK with paying the rent of the country, each person's fair share of the necessary expenses it takes to run the federal (and state and then local) government. Taking more than that from any single citizen is bad. If we took the same percentage from each citizen (so that the deserving poor paid less than their fair share but the same percentage as the rich, who would of course pay more because they make more) that would be nearly acceptable. But to charge the real go getters, who studied hard, worked hard, and took reasonable chances that paid off, a higher percentage of their income, that is government theft, that is a crime in my lexicon. The only justifications for taxing the successful at a higher rate I hear are variations on the theme of "because we can--they have more to send in to the IRS." Say it ain't so, George.
I'm OK with paying the rent of the country, each person's fair share of the necessary expenses it takes to run the federal (and state and then local) government. Taking more than that from any single citizen is bad. If we took the same percentage from each citizen (so that the deserving poor paid less than their fair share but the same percentage as the rich, who would of course pay more because they make more) that would be nearly acceptable. But to charge the real go getters, who studied hard, worked hard, and took reasonable chances that paid off, a higher percentage of their income, that is government theft, that is a crime in my lexicon. The only justifications for taxing the successful at a higher rate I hear are variations on the theme of "because we can--they have more to send in to the IRS." Say it ain't so, George.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:01 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I hear he might flip on gay marriage as well. One thing no one will ever accuse this president of doing is trying to hard to please everyone.
If anything, he seems to be trying to alienate everyone. Only 30% to go and two years to do it!g
If anything, he seems to be trying to alienate everyone. Only 30% to go and two years to do it!g
Roger,
Did we read the same articles? The president spoke of the possibility of raising taxes to salvage Social Security. I did not read anything about taxing the rich.
If he did agree to a tax increase for the purpose of salvaging Social Security, domestically he might save what little remains of his presidency. People would think: "Well, here's a problem that everybody recognizes and intead of prusuing a policy of more tax cuts for the rich, he did somethingg for the little guy."
I am not going to launch into a detailed crticism of our current tax system. I will say that I do not share your vision of the deserving rich. I will ask: "How do you feel about the children and grand children of the real go getters who are living off of the largesse created by their ancestors? I am okay w/ them. Please remember, however, that the policies of this administration favor those who clip coupons rather than work for a living. The policies this administration are morphing the income tax into a salary tax. Weep no tears for the uber rich. Unless we become a socialist country like Graet Britain, they will survive quite comfortably on their 400' ocean going yachts and private jets.
As for "Say it ain't so, George," I harken back to an on line discussion we had recently w/ PT regarding George W. Bush as a movie director. At that time, I called him the Ishtar Presdient. Since then I wonder if perhaps he isn't The Days Of Heaven President. I hope not but I think so.
Regards,
T
Did we read the same articles? The president spoke of the possibility of raising taxes to salvage Social Security. I did not read anything about taxing the rich.
If he did agree to a tax increase for the purpose of salvaging Social Security, domestically he might save what little remains of his presidency. People would think: "Well, here's a problem that everybody recognizes and intead of prusuing a policy of more tax cuts for the rich, he did somethingg for the little guy."
I am not going to launch into a detailed crticism of our current tax system. I will say that I do not share your vision of the deserving rich. I will ask: "How do you feel about the children and grand children of the real go getters who are living off of the largesse created by their ancestors? I am okay w/ them. Please remember, however, that the policies of this administration favor those who clip coupons rather than work for a living. The policies this administration are morphing the income tax into a salary tax. Weep no tears for the uber rich. Unless we become a socialist country like Graet Britain, they will survive quite comfortably on their 400' ocean going yachts and private jets.
As for "Say it ain't so, George," I harken back to an on line discussion we had recently w/ PT regarding George W. Bush as a movie director. At that time, I called him the Ishtar Presdient. Since then I wonder if perhaps he isn't The Days Of Heaven President. I hope not but I think so.
Regards,
T
# posted by 
: 10:00 AM
: 10:00 AM
Mike, at the end of his tenure, Truman was at 22%. Now everybody admires him. I won't cry if gay marriage is ever voter approved, but don't blame me when the beastialists and polygamy practicers demand their equal protection rights, and we have no arguments left that didn't fail with gay marriage.
Merry Christmas, Mark. Looks strongly like I'll be right here for it.
Tony, every time you use the phrase "tax cuts for the rich" I cringe. The progressive tax rates have been lowered in each bracket but the lowest earners got the lion's share of the percentage cut. Of course 1% of $2 million is more actual dollars than 5% of $25,000, but that math fact doesn't transform cutting all tax rates in all tax brackets into a tax cut for the rich. When you use the phrase in the future, keep in mind the intellectual dishonesty inherent in it. Even if it's raising the limit on what can be taxed for FICA, since there is no concurrent raise in SS benefits, you change the Ponzi scheme "guaranteed" retirement benefits into an even worse socialist income redistribution. As you might be aware, I'm against that.
I get the Ishtar reference, but I'm all at sea for Days of Heaven, a movie I liked a lot (although not as much as the near masterpiece Badlands). You're going to have to expand on that, if you will.
And Mark's reference to Bortz's fair tax is apropos. We should not tax income but spending money. I just can't imagine a combined sales tax of 25% or higher which it would be with combined state and fair tax.
Finally, I'm not worried about the legacy kids starving for more Beluga; this is just a moral issue for me.
Merry Christmas, Mark. Looks strongly like I'll be right here for it.
Tony, every time you use the phrase "tax cuts for the rich" I cringe. The progressive tax rates have been lowered in each bracket but the lowest earners got the lion's share of the percentage cut. Of course 1% of $2 million is more actual dollars than 5% of $25,000, but that math fact doesn't transform cutting all tax rates in all tax brackets into a tax cut for the rich. When you use the phrase in the future, keep in mind the intellectual dishonesty inherent in it. Even if it's raising the limit on what can be taxed for FICA, since there is no concurrent raise in SS benefits, you change the Ponzi scheme "guaranteed" retirement benefits into an even worse socialist income redistribution. As you might be aware, I'm against that.
I get the Ishtar reference, but I'm all at sea for Days of Heaven, a movie I liked a lot (although not as much as the near masterpiece Badlands). You're going to have to expand on that, if you will.
And Mark's reference to Bortz's fair tax is apropos. We should not tax income but spending money. I just can't imagine a combined sales tax of 25% or higher which it would be with combined state and fair tax.
Finally, I'm not worried about the legacy kids starving for more Beluga; this is just a moral issue for me.
Sorry. I have been out digging out the cars. Days of Heaven was so far out of budget and made so little money, it parctically wrecked UA and definitely changed the way the company made movies.
The invitation stand sif y're here.
The invitation stand sif y're here.
# posted by : 1:34 PM
: 1:34 PM
I've met a few of the folks who have been getting millions of bonuses in their stocking this xmas. They neither studied hard, worked hard, or took reasonable chances that paid off. They were born in the right place at the right time. Let them pay for it. Society will be better off.
# posted by : 1:44 PM
: 1:44 PM
You're confusing Days of Heaven by T. Malick with Heaven's Gate by M. Cimino, but I now understand. I'll probably be there Christmas. What can I bring besides lots of deer and elk? Frontier has no seat for me before Christmas, apparently.
Peter b, you're playing the Paris Hilton card. Since she and others like her did absolutely nothing to deserve any wealth much less the extreme wealth they enjoy merely by being born in a certain family, we should take it (or a big chunk) away from her. What sort of moral system is that? We don't think they deserve it (they didn't earn it) so let's take it away. I haven't read enough Marx to be able to back this up, but I believe that class envy is the seed from which the horror of comunism grew. Think on what you're actually advocating, man.
Peter b, you're playing the Paris Hilton card. Since she and others like her did absolutely nothing to deserve any wealth much less the extreme wealth they enjoy merely by being born in a certain family, we should take it (or a big chunk) away from her. What sort of moral system is that? We don't think they deserve it (they didn't earn it) so let's take it away. I haven't read enough Marx to be able to back this up, but I believe that class envy is the seed from which the horror of comunism grew. Think on what you're actually advocating, man.
I don't think advocating no tax cuts for the rich equals "class envy" or promoting communism.
# posted by : 2:50 PM
: 2:50 PM
but don't blame me when the beastialists and polygamy practicers demand their equal protection rights,
Promise, I won't. Is that really the best argument you can come up with against gay marriage? Wow, that is twisted man. You should think that through.
Promise, I won't. Is that really the best argument you can come up with against gay marriage? Wow, that is twisted man. You should think that through.
I did a long post about how weak the slippery slope argument was here but it was all I had. When thousands of years of tradition and our somewhat confused reproductive stragegies of a million years are thrown out the window and love becomes the only criterion for marriage then any animal, person, persons or even object you love can be your bride or groom. Who are we to say you can't? I know it's a weak argument but: Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. My apologies to Martin Luther.
Post a Comment
<< Home
