Progressive Caucus Budget: Truly Courageous and Serious
While the media go on and on about how Paul Ryan's budget is so serious and courageous that the President "must respond" to it (see the clip above where Fox's Stuart Varney employs the 'crisis' budget strategy), a truly progressive proposal has been released.
Unlike Ryan's proposal, which takes us all the way through 2040 before the deficit is eliminated, this budget puts us on solid footing by 2021, with a fully balanced budget by 2014. Here are some specifics:
• Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021
• Puts America back to work with a “Make it in America” jobs program
• Protects the social safety net
• Ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Is FAIR (Fixing America’s Inequality Responsibly)What the proposal accomplishes:
• Primary budget balance by 2014.
• Budget surplus by 2021.
• Reduces public debt as a share of GDP to 64.4% by 2021, down 16.9 percentage points from
a baseline fully adjusted for both the doc fix and the AMT patch.
• Reduces deficits by $5.7 trillion over 2012-21
• Both outlays and revenue equal 22.3% of GDP by 2021
Real courage involves raising taxes and explaining that we can't pay for wars without a cost attached. Real courage involves protecting our most vulnerable and asking those with much to give a fair share.
This budget is a courageous budget. Not Ryan's. Yet, there hasn't been so much as a peep from the mainstream media about this alternatives. Gosh, I wonder why not.
Where are the links to the comments by the cleaning lady and the lavatory attendant announcing their support for this initiative?
I'm sure they will be all over the MSM and the internets tonite, espousing this wonderment! Ohhh...I'm alllll tingly!!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
So you expect the 'real people' of America to side with millionaires over the 'cleaning lady' and the 'lavatory attendant'?
I looked at the 'real people' of America, the vast majority of whom work for a living, in the Wisconsin protests and I saw the face of ordinary, normal, hard working Americans: teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, professors, students, police, firefighters, EMTs, et al.
You lump them all with the 'cleaning lady.' What a strange bizarre elitist you are.
In one place I worked, the 'cleaning crew' were doctors and lawyers and professors who had emigrated legally to America and this was all the work they could get.
But sit there on your extremely LAZY behind and laugh at all those who work for their money, rather than having 'their money work for them.'
You know, that 'my money does my work for me' thing comes to a grinding halt without the actual labor of those who produce the value that money has....Blockhead.
MyMy
...my take on LAP's take: You, me, and ur momma can all love and support this plan. BUT until obama, pelosi, and reid back the CPC budget plan and are willing to FIGHT for it... the MSM aint' covering this.
Cue the Kabuki....
He is not making fun of real cleaning ladies and lavatory attendants. He is making fun of the Minority Leader of the US House and Majority Leader of the Senate by calling them those names.
He admires real cleaning ladies and lavatory attendants and believes they should get a sustinable wage.
TFR
Quit playing with yourself.
during the great George Will wardrobe dust up.
TFR
There's actually a simple formula for calculating the "serious" factor:
(Including a tax on the rich in proposal) <> "serious"
Now this proposal is what I'm talking about!
The Progressive Caucus has simply NO weight within the Democratic Party, and is totally irrelevant to the direction of economic policy. Van Hollen will listen to them...and then throw them under the bus as usual and "compromise" with the TeaPublicans and Blue Dogs.
How about a genuine People's Budget that goes to the heart of the matter:
-- Repeal all tax cuts of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton era, and returns the "ability to pay" concept.
-- Enact real financial reforms, up to and including nationalization and localization of financial industries, as well as a transactions tax on junk bonds and derivatives
-- Brings back and enforces Glass-Steagal and environmental regs
-- Cuts defense spending by AT LEAST 50% by ending wars and cutting weapons systems
-- Enacts Medicare for All/single payer with no exceptions
-- Raises minimum wage to livable standards and protects union organization
-- Full investment in education and infrastructure, and generous (if streamlined) social welfare provisions
-- Fully funds and protects Social Security by removing cap on eligible income and even reducing tax on poorer workers' incomes.
-- Protects full reproductive rights for women; voting rights for minorities; etc.
And if the Democrats aren't willing to defend that...well, that's why there's the Green Party.
Anthony
The mainstream Democrats have only a passing acquaintance with such seriousness.
They pass it completely by on their way to capitulate to the Republicans.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
The Tea Party had no weight within the Republican party. Now it does. I guarantee you it didn't happen because people sat at home and decided that oh well, they'll just be ignored.
The Progressive Caucus is 90 members strong. That's almost half. I'd say it's a mistake to assume they have no weight, but they will become increasingly weightless and floaty if we all just shrug and say they've lost before they've even started fighting.
Ya. Come on Anthony.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
The so called Tea Party is a manipulation of people, mostly social conservatives, who were genuinely angry about what they rightly saw as plunder by the powerful. The mission of the powerful, the Plutocrats, is as it has always been, it is the issue of subverting democracy. They are interested in economic inequality and to maintain it they confuse people into thinking that the government is the source of all of their problems.
The Plutocrats who invented the slavery of economic oppression invented the slavery of organized religion. They have long been able to muster the forces of deception.
They throw the social conservatives some red meat in the form of mumbo jumbo on abortion, homophobia and race baiting and voilá, the foks down home are happy. Happy and oblivious to their continued economic oppression.
That is how the Right, the Republicans, keep the social conservatives happy.
The Democrats, who once upon a time veered left in the New Deal when the alternative seemed to be a revolution, whether it was Fascist or State Communist, now have an entirely different relationship with the Left.
The Left, which is about economic equality (social equality is more easily justified), hardly exists anymore. See Chris Hedges 'The Death of the Liberal Class'.
The Democrats talk a good talk in their campaigns but then serve the Plutocrats who payed the money and turned the dials to get them elected.
Obama won the Cannes Award for advertising. Advertising, as in selling people something other than what they thought they were getting, something they didn't need.
I am all about progressive values, I avoid getting misty eyed about the strength of the progressive caucus. They rolled over on single payer, they even rolled over on the so called 'public option'. \
Most Americans, I believe, if they understood the issues as explained in a clear cut manner, devoid the silly language that is thrown around, would come down thoroughly on the side of progressive values.
Getting that message out is the whole problem. Now with Citizens United the hill upwards has turned into a mountain.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I wish Obama new how to advertise. Or, at least, that he would use that power for good instead of...well, how about he just uses that power?
Anyway, the Democrats whole problem with messaging is that they aren't smarmy enough, if you can believe that. The Republitards say anything, do anything to get their point across. To us, they look ridiculous, condescending, pushy, and stubborn. Democrats want to be more civil, trying to stay out of the mud...and I can respect that, to a point...but they're losing the war of words. Republicans treat Americans like children, Democrats try to speak to them like adults...well, guess which tactic seems to work?
Obama is doing exactly what his masters on Wall Street want; crippling the democratic party from within, and dumping the blame on profressives and their policies for his unpopular failings.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
That doesn’t work exactly here though. The tea party’s ideas, while clearly nuts, benefit capital, especially financial capital. So them getting a large microphone to spew nonsense makes logical sense. Even if they’re nothing more than useful idiots, their policies are radically anti-worker and beneficial to the people who own the media. IF you were to do a left of center equivalent in the democratic party, as opposed to working for change outside of electoral politics or within a third party, it is 100% certain you would lose in the short term and probable in the medium turn. Lets say we all got rid of corporate money in the democratic party, lets also say ben nelson and people like him were kicked out of the democratic party. In TODAY’S world what would that mean? Nelson and people like him would simply go to the other major party as would their supporters. In the citizens united America we live in the corporate money would go to the other party in massive amounts. If it is two to one now, it would shoot up to ten to one. Think of what the chamber of commerce would be saying if Bernie Sanders or someone like him were the nominee. That isn’t the case with the tea party, the opposite is actually true. Their message is destructive but it is beneficial to moneyed interests.
FDR was elected on a pretty centrist platform. He didn’t move left because he was a good hearted person who cared about working people. Unions were much stronger, workers were much more militant (although that is coming back a bit), other left of center parties had decent support and the left was organizing and active outside of electoral politics. The USSR was around then, and even though Stalin was a monster, it and non-Bolshevik socialism was an inspiration for many workers and a threat to those in power. Totally different world. If people don’t get active and if they don’t do anything more than work within the democratic party, if NOTHING in the world will ever make them leave that horrible party then the country is doomed.
Personally I think the tea party is a sign of our failure on the left. 50 years ago we’d be organizing those people. Now we don’t propose any economic alternatives to the ideological right, don’t have the guts or vision to point out what the system is doing to them and simply mock them. Some of them are clearly Alex Jones like irrational, but some of them are angry at the economic policies of the last 40 years, are victims of those policies, and they hear what they are told are the “left” in power signing onto those policies and not proposing any alternatives. Whereas the left in the 20th century went into the heart of the beast, the south, to organize people and to work for justice, we now get in meetings with like minded people and preach the choir.
Decades ago the left DID have an alternate economic program, it doesn't now. it makes the system a little more humane, but not much else. if there isn't an alternative being proposed, and there are alternatives in theory in practice out there, then what CAN people turn to? if we aren't reaching out to people who don't agree with us or know of alternative ideas, what chances do we have?
They should have proposed something like this...so when they start making concessions, it ends up like the one they actually proposed. Instead, they'll still make concessions and the budget will end up looking closer to Ryans.
" Yet, there hasn't been so much as a peep from the mainstream media about this alternatives. Gosh, I wonder why not."
Well, as long as the M$M is chocked full of millionaires and multi-millionaires - owned outright or through sponsorship of huge corporations - we can expect no peeps for the regular peeps.
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
It's not like they provide a public service any more.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
because it is about five hours old and many of the villagers would have to be under close medical supervision before they could risk a peek. The "vapors" can get so quickly out of hand you know.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I get dizzy just thinking about it
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
...to no fanfare at all.
Their CPC website has nary a press release on the proposal, their four page summary has no numbers beyond a chart, and the Op-Ed published in today's Arizona Republic by the two co-chairs spends its head and first three quarters of its copy on the Ryan proposal instead of the People's budget. How much attention did you expect them to get?
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opin...
They got 90 members? Anybody on staff to suggest their People's Budget might merit a "people's"
press release posted on the ole CPC website?
TFR
Thank you, my point exactly.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Kinda like the Grijalva/Ellison Op-Ed began by attacking Ryan.
IMy point is not whether the media rejects paying attention to this proposal because they hate or dismiss its substance. My point is whether you can criticize them for not covering something the authors themselves seem to be inept at publicizing.
We simply agree the four page PDP has no numbers. That does not mean they are not there. But the media cannot cover what they cannot find.
Update...On a lighter note, I am happy my first reply to our new Republican commenting pal contains the first appearance of my new, more seriously attired, adult avatar image thingy.
Upupdate...Damn, Belushi is back. Gimme my top hat, site monitor!
TFR
Well I was making two separate points, I suppose I should have made that clear.
The media won't take it seriously for the reason that we both cited, that this proposal has little substance.
If they included numbers on any of that stuff I would be willing to try it. I'm a pragmatist, however, so I'm a bit wary of the efficacy of the whole "tax the rich mentality."
If it would work, then fine, but I have a sneaking suspicion that they'd get around the added tax burden somehow. I've been a proponent of a flat tax, as I think that would increase their taxes enough without taking half their wealth.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
During the health care debate, Republicans in the House were waving blank pieces of paper as if they contained some master plan to make health care affordable, with Chuck Todd inquiring relentlessly as to what was on those pages. Months later, Boehner, et al. published "The Pledge to America," a piece of fluff the chattering class took seriously, which contained zero details.
Half their wealth is just the starting point. They took all of our wealth the greedy SOB's.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
Written by a hispanic and a muslim.
Thanks Anthony for your excellent, reality based response.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
So you expect the 'real people' of America to side with millionaires over the 'cleaning lady' and the 'lavatory attendant'?
Try reading.
Geez, subtlety and intelligence and comprehensive seem to be qualities lost on you.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
So is that proposal seriously suggesting that millionaires be taxed over 40%, or am I misreading it? (admittedly, numbers are not my thing).
If that's the case then you can expect a mass exodus of the extremely wealthy. If I knew that half of my income was going to be grabbed up by the government, and I also knew that I could go live anywhere on the planet, I'd gtfo right quick.
This budget will not get any media coverage because it won't be taken seriously. It won't be taken seriously because there are no real numbers in it. There's just some percentages, some ideas of what we should cut, and then we magically end up with $5 trillion some how, all the while adding a public health care option.
The healthcare bill added $1.4 trillion to our budget, correct? What the hell sort of numbers will come out of a full-on public option? And my guess is that cuts to defense spending would be insanely deep. I also don't see anything in there about regulating the healthcare industry to drive down costs and keep them under control, which means that your public option would simply just cause more money hemorrhaging.
I know, I know, you all are going to shit on me and tell me what an idiot I am because I don't think this budget would work. Forgive me for not taking a budget proposal seriously when it doesn't have any hard numbers to it.
Edit: This thing is more like a progressive manifesto with a chart at the end than a serious budget proposal.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
The US is one of the few countries that collects income tax on expatriates.
.
The Ryan budget is completely specious. This one includes specific military cuts and specific tax increases, which you have already complained about.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Well then I'd dump all my money into a swiss account (can people still do that trick?) and then renounce my citizenship or whatever, if such a thing can be done.
I mean c'mon, they're rich. What CAN'T they do? I'm just trying to be realistic here.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
The income tax structure needs to be PROGRESSIVE.
People who make ten million a year should be paying serious taxes.
There a people who make one hundred million per year.
There are a few who make a billion or more in a year.
The Plutocrats want to confuse the issues so that small folks think the the tax increases are coming down on them.
Americans do not understand the vast inequality of wealth in this country.
There a four hundred billionaires with wealth of about two trillion. That is as much as the combined wealth of the lower 50%.
If you saved one million per year, you would have a billion in one thousand years.
These are the Plutocrats and they live on a different planet.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Well, all I know is that I wouldn't want to pay half the money I earn to the government. It's not that I'm a greedy person, it's just that I want to have as much choice as possible to do what I please with my money.
I'm a charitable guy, and I know in my heart that I'd contribute a lot of my money to charity if I were super mega-rich. But why would I want to throw more of my money into a welfare system that allows lazy people to live off of it for life? (I know that not everyone that receives government assistance is lazy, but we know that there are generational welfare lifers out there, and if you don't believe that then you need to join reality).
The point is that you all want to piss more money away into these programs that are broken. Why would any of you want to put more money into social security in its current form? How about we focus on fixing these programs to make them sustainable rather than talking about starving them or fattening them up?
Neither overfunding them or defunding them will make these programs any more or less of a money sink. Money misses the real issue that there needs to be reform in SS, Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare in general. Fix them, make them sustainable, and then talk about putting more money into them.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
tell the republicans and democrats how to fix them instead of just saying fix them. The easiest way to fix them is to remove the cap and have the FICA tax on all income. Now that isn't hard is it? Now all you have to do is make them do it. That's the hard part.
How would I know how to make them more efficient? 98% of Americans have no clue as to where to even begin to make these programs work more efficiently. That's why we only hear people saying "DEFUND" or "IT NEEDS MORE MONEY!" We think that money is the issue, but the real issue is deeper than that.
I don't pretend to know how to fix things, but I do know that no amount of extra money or defunding is going to make it work any better.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
I just told you how to fix it.
Now you have expressed the problem.
1 - One pays taxes to support the work of the government. The building of infrastructure and the education of the citizens. The wealthy benefit greatly from these things. They should pay according to what they receive in benefits.
2 - The programs that you seem to be complaining about, specifically Social Security and Medicare, are programs that are paid out of payroll taxes. These systems are not broken. In the early '80s the system was reformed and at that time the income cap included some 92% of the national income.
Because of the rise in the inequality of income which has completely favored the wealthy this amount is now 84%. The cap needs to be raised. That is the only reform that is needed. Other than raising the benefits of the lowest tier.
Medicare which is a health insurance for seniors and the disabled has a problem because of the vast general bloating of health costs.
A complete single payer system would go a long way to correct this.
Medicaid which is a joint Federal/State health program for the impoverished has the same problem with the bloated health care costs. It would be merged with a single payer system.
Tending to the health of impoverished people not to mention anyone without health care is not only enlightened socially, but practically as the transmission of untreated diseases such as TB, just for one example of many, are in no one's interest.
As for welfare, per se, it hardly exists at all for poor people. Bill Clinton did away with it.
But the is a vast welfare system. It is not for poor people, it is for the wealthy and their corporations.
As for the wealthy and their charities. Why should they get to choose their charities and receive a tax break? If they are contributing from the goodness of their hearts, bless them, but don't give them a tax break. Let the use of the money be decided democratically.
I could go on.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Woah, you think SS is not broken? Do you even know what Congress has done to it?
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
They haven't done anything yet.
I gave you specific numbers on the nature of the problem.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
No, this budget does NOT include any specific cuts, at least the PDF in the article doesn't. It just says we need to cut some stuff in the military and gives no number figures or any indication that any research was done.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
No research; in fact, research to the contrary is everywhere, including Heritage Foundation, who he used to craft this proposal.
Now I'm going to address the issue of moving money offshore to dodge taxes. First, there's a great deal of risk associated with that. Second, it's astonishing to me that someone who makes a million bucks would object to paying more in taxes.
50% of a million is half a million. No one "Needs" half a million to live on. Sorry.
World War II was paid for with a tax increase. Bush started 2 wars and gave everyone a tax break. That tax break didn't stimulate the economy; it led into a recession that's the deepest since the Depression.
Now, after the store is given away, the wealthy folks want to whine about not getting their sweet tax break, while many of them profiteer on the wars Bush launched.
Do you have any idea how incredibly unpatriotic that is? Any at all?
No, no one NEEDS half a million, but if that's what they earn then that's what they earn. It's not for us to decide what someone "needs," beyond the basics of living.
To me, it's unpatriotic for the government to tell me what I "need." I can decide that for myself.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
More like what you 'need to' start doing again to save the country.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
I mean, if you stated that you "needed" all of your money, does that require the government to let you keep it? And your arguments are plagued by typical Republican talking points, e.g., welfare recipients, patriotism, freedom, etc.
Here's some simple truths:
(1) Taxes are essential to the functioning of any large civil society.
(2) As a general rule, people don't like to pay taxes.
(3) As a general rule, the uber-wealthy reap the most benefits from a civil society. Among other things, civil society protects the assets of the uber-wealthy and provides them with the means to generate more wealth, e.g., roads permit the uber-wealthy to move their products to market, the U.S. civil justice system provides the uber-wealthy with legal recourse, backed by the police power of the state, to enforce judgments.
(4) Notwithstanding the benefits they reap from a civil society, many of the uber-wealthy erroneously believe everything they obtain is a function of their own ingenuity.
(5) The uber-wealthy are better positioned financially and more obliged morally to pay more for the protections they enjoy.
“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing”
-Jean Baptiste Colbert (Stephen's Ancestor?)(French Economist and Minister of Finance under King Louis XIV of France
now i know where Pratchett got his line in Jingo:
'Taxation, gentlemen, is very much like dairy farming. The task is to extract the maximum amount of milk with the minimum of moo. And I am afraid to say that these days all I get is moo.'
funny that, i hear a whole lot of moo from the modern landed gentry.
by way of comparison BTW, once you hit 180K earnings in a year in Aus, the top rate is 45%.
Those that make million a year, that is a lot, but it is nowhere near the max.
There a people who make billion in one year. One thousand times a million.
If you made a million a year and saved every cent, you would have a billion in one thousand years.
There are one thousand billionaires in the world, four hundred of them are in the US.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Adios Amigos! don't let the door hit ya...
And if they all leave then where do you get your tax money? If they find all the loopholes, which they almost always do, then where do you get your tax money?
Again, this budget won't be taken seriously because the progressive caucus or whatever is small, it won't be taken seriously because this is not a serious budget proposal.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Not every rich American is so greedy that they'll up-root and move to a foreign country for a little more wealth to sit on. If you put your money in a Swiss bank it has to stay there or you will be taxed on it.
You think 40% is a bit too high, well it's a starting point. We can raise it over a number of years. It used to be 90% - back when America was happy, healthy, and prosperous. We can't let the greed of a handful of people dictate terms using fear of 'leaving us'. We already know such people are not patriots, and they do not have America's best interst in mind with their ludicrous proposals.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
When were the rich taxed 90%? Forgive my ignorance.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Huge boom post-war economy, Jack.
"When were the rich taxed 90%? Forgive my ignorance."
No need to apologize.
Here is a link to the top marginal Income Tax Rates from 1913 through 2008.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-fede...
When the marginal tax rate is high, business owners are penalized for pulling money out of their companies. What do they do instead? They plow profits back into their companies, which helps the economy grow.
When the marginal tax rate is low, business owners see that as an opportunity for profit taking. Instead of reinvesting profits in the company, they take the money and run.
Their corporate welfare gravy train would be gone.
Methinks they will be stayin'.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
If businessmen (many of which were born in America) see America as nothing more than a land of overpriced labor and gullible, debt-laden consumers, and if these folks would really pack their bags and hitch the nearest luxury jet out of this country simply because they can pay a reduced tax rate elsewhere, then let them go. Honestly. Let them retreat to Galt's Gulch so the rest of us Americans who see our country as more than just a dollar sign can rebuild. The CEO's don't run the machines, write the code, heal the patients, or drive the trucks. We can make do without them.
Actually, we can more than "make do." Without a parasitic class of money-changing overlords, we can prosper.
But it will be a cold day in Hell before the rich retreat to Gult's Gulch. After all, that was the very basis of the Cold War [Hint: we were on the wrong side]; "power to the common people, not to the uber-wealthy elite." Yet, somehow, "we" fought for the supremacy of of international capitalists and literally slaughtered (almost) every last nascent workers' movement throughout the globe [Castro is hanging on by his yellowed fingernails].
Oh, I would love to just "let them go," but they're bluffing. You would have to drive them out with every ounce of force and energy you could muster.
You couldn't make do without them because your plan relies on their massive amounts of wealth. How can you tax the rich if they're all gone or get out of paying the extra taxes?
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Their wealth is primarily tiny bits of information stored in a computer. 1's and 0's, for the most part, not gold, silver, etc. Physical assets can be nationalized (e.g., oil, coal, land, property) and proceeds from America's natural resources can be used to fund America's regeneration. The few billionaires who pack their bags could be compelled via force of law to pay "expatriation taxes," but most would simply stay in their country of origin, bite the bullet, and ante up the cash. As was already pointed out, they did it a few mere decades ago, and this great, plentiful, and beautiful land of ours will keep most of them right where they are [some folks actually like/love this country, you know?].
It's perfectly feasible, but requires immense political will. Is that likely? I have my serious doubts, but you can never be sure what circumstance and the right charismatic leader are capable of. I wouldn't completely discount the possibility.
Would raising the top marginal rate back up to where it was under, say Reagan, cause this imaginary exodus?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
You couldn't make do without them because your plan relies on their massive amounts of wealth.- Jack Camwell
Yeah, bullshit, their wealth was made off the backs of labor, without labor they have no wealth.
Labor produces value.
Remove labor from the labor/investor relationship and the wealth doesn't have shit.
Remove the investor from the relationship and labor still trudges on.
Labor will still produce goods and services of value, people would barter their time and produce to purchase it's needs and wants.
I'd think that getting rid of investors would actually be good for labor as labor would capitialize more on it's produce rather than the investor who's profit comes from undercutting labor.
Corporations and the wealthy have fooled people into believing they are necessary where they really aren't.
If the rich and their corporations dissapeared overnight and you'd see natural competion and innovation emerge. Mom and Pop shops would spring up overnight to fill the vacuum.
There will always be entepenuers.
Beer-i.e., God's Sweet Nectar- is a magic drink that makes you smarter, stronger, and more sexy.
-S. Colbert
Of industrial countries in the world. Even if you renounced your American citizenship to live elsewhere, you can count on being taxed more elsewhere,
Our top tax rate is also the lowest it's been since the robber baron days. If you look historically at our economic cycles, the more tax cuts we give to the wealthy, the worse the economy. Supply-side economics simply doesn't work.
Although it's counter-intuitive, the HIGHER the tax rate is, the better the economy does, because people will reinvest in their businesses to lower their net taxable income.
Now don't get me wrong. I think they DO need to pay more taxes, but 50% is excessive in my eye.
Again, I don't like the idea of the government taking half of my earnings. If I'm worth a million bucks then darn it I better see at least 70% of it.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
That's taxed at 35% right now.
Yeah I know. I was going to throw that number in there but I assumed everyone knew that.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
on what they're worth. They are taxed on their annual income.
The use of the term 'earn' is not really acurate for many rich people either. If you make money on money and little else, you are not earning it.
Making money off money is part of what is killing America. It used to be investments - not really too bad - but now it's gambling, betting against growth, and ponzi schemes. It's got to be regulated again, the way it was.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
I agree on that.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
For example, in Denmark, the top rate is 80%. You read that right. 80%
But Danish people do not pay out of pocket for basic health services, pension services, nursing homes, etc. Not only do they not pay for college, but students get a stipend for books and living. Pregnant women get 6 months maternity leave and nursing visits once the baby is born and child care assistance if they want to go back to work. You may think that's no big deal, but be honest: do you have 20% of your paycheck available as strictly discretionary spending after paying for health care, child care and college? Probably not. And as someone who doesn't make anywhere near that amount, your tax rate is significantly lower. But you get all those same benefits.
The Danish government takes care of the citizens because they understand that is the covenant we have as a society. Not 'every man for himself,' but 'we are only as strong as our weakest link'. As a result, the Danish people are consistently rated the happiest people in the world. Their quality of life indices overshadow ours immensely.
And what's the population size? What's the ratio of rich to middle class and below? Are they healthier than Americans overall? Are they smarter than Americans overall?
My guess is that they are healthier and smarter. I don't really want to pay for an idiot to go to college, and these days that's most of what you see in college: morons.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Yes Jack,
You should see 50% of it taken in taxes after the first 1 or 2 million.
Anything over $10,000,000 should be in a 90% bracket. Nobody, and I mean nobody, needs that much money.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
Tax rates should be sky high on the super wealthy . No one should have billions in personal wealth , besides it being just plain obscene and wrong ( my opinion only ) they become too powerful and it's dangerous for one thing ( take the Koch brothers for example ) and no , they did not earn that money , people who work for the billionaire make or made the money for him , they profit off the work and labor of others who work for them directly or indirectly . Tax the hell out of them after a certain point , they can spread the wealth around and avoid taxes . When the top 2 % - 5 % have and control 25 % of the nations wealth , more than the bottom 50 % put together , that is pretty F'd up .
The rich aren't going anywhere.
We had 94% marginal rates in the 50's, and there were still plenty of rich people.
Besides, where are they gonna go? Most nice countries have far higher taxes (especially on the rich) than the U.S.
Just another outdated GOP bulls**t talking point, that has absolutely no resemblance to reality.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
Raise Taxes
Spend ("Invest") $1.5 trillion
--------
Democrats are going to have a tough sell, so they better get selling!
It's not like the M$M provides a public service or that it's non partisan. We need to see that this is brought to the house and senate and given the consideration it is deserved. That's where our energy should be focused.
Who do we write to to ensure this real budget is brought before the house?!?!?
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Profiteer and get fat on the backs of your fellow Americans, then renounce citizenship and move everything to the Caymans. Nice.
Just watching 'hardball' and Matthews just suggested the 'left' doesn't want to cut anything - and that's a lie, perhaps not intended - he added 'certainly in their programs' - but it's simply not true and it plays into the republican meme.
The 'left' wants to cut wasteful military spending, oil subsidies, tax cuts for the super rich, three military occupations, tax loop holes for major corporations, and come on Chris, i'm just getting started on what the 'left' wants to cut!
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Obama wouldn't touch this budget with a 10-foot pole.
And to whomever gave me the tax brackets, thanks. I did a little research on the 1950's economy and it didn't seem to start to take off until 1954. Taxes were so high because of all the projects that congress initiated.
There was also a note on how Eisenhower was really big on fiscal responsibility, i.e. not spending more than we were taking in. What I read said that we only slightly reduced our defense spending. A large bulk of taxes went to funding highway projects and public services.
And whoever told me that SS is not broken, you're way, way wrong. It's broken because Congress keeps borrowing from it, and they're borrowing more than it's receiving. How is that fiscally responsible?
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Your sources are questionable, at best.
Taking the latter first, social security is fine. It's fully funded until 2037, after which time it will pay 75% of its benefits. And the reason it's in "trouble" has nothing to do with the purported failure of liberalism, but instead is a function of demographics. In addition to the fact that boomers are poised to consume a disproportionate amount of resources, people aren't having children at the rates witnessed in prior decades. How do we solve this dilemma? The same way the issue was addressed back in 1983, when Reagan was president, and he signed into law a tax bill that raised the limit on witholding, thereby making social security solvent for a couple of decades. Reagan was also the first president, by the way, to use social security to offset annual deficits. That's why Gore kept talking about putting it in a "lockbox" so as to prevent borrowing against the trust fund.
As to your first point - "Taxes were so high because of all the projects that congress initiated" - that's nonsense. Taxes were high because Congress and the Executive Branch were far more fiscally responsible, relatively speaking, and didn't do silly things like cut taxes while conducting a war. Indeed, the government raised taxes to pay off the enormous bill following WWII.
Oh, I forgot, any source that I find that even slightly disagrees with whatever you believe is "questionable."
http://homepages.gac.edu/~jcullip/workexample...
I guess university websites are questionable these days?
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Yes
It's always humorous to watch the slash-and-burn folks pretend like U.S. Treasury Bonds are akin to sloppily written IOU's, as if a desperate Congressman ran to the SS administration building, scooped up a bunch of cash, and, in his haste to shower money on his constituents, left behind an IOU.
In reality, the SS administration collects money from workers, invests this money in - among other things - U.S. Treasury Bonds, and then, like any other investor, awaits its interest and principal payments. These are the IOU's you hear so much about; U.S. Treasury Bonds. Technically, one arm of the government owes money to another arm. Yet, the transaction was nothing more than a routine, legally-binding bond sale.
To pretend like these "pieces of paper" are worthless IOU's is to display an appalling financial ignorance.
@karoli, I totally agree with your statement about "real courage." What the repugs are offering is cowardly at best and downright evil at worst. I just can't believe the lack of focus on what they are suggesting. I hope Wednesday brings something better.
There's always the option to "eat the rich."
According to this, borrowing against SS was a bad idea in the long run:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/security-9567...
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
isn't bad. had time to read it. it doesn't have a chance for a few reasons: the corporate press won't cover it, the democratic party is a conservative party on economic issues when it comes down to it; it makes too much logical sense on a lot of levels to get too much attention in the us. we are a crazy, irrational country.
I admit the mass exodus thing is a stretch, but they get out of a lot of their taxes now, they'd definitely do it if they got a huge hike. I'm surprised that you all have so much faith in the honesty of the corporate overlords that you constantly deride.
Anyway, the idea that a person deserves to keep more than half of what he earns is not just a "talking point." I've worked hard my entire life, and I'd be upset to see half of it go away. If I had a skill set that was extremely lucrative, there'd be no doubt that I would be working just as hard as I do now.
My point is that if we get healthcare costs under control, make American education worth a damn again, and get the government to operate more efficiently, then we likely wouldn't need gigantic tax hikes.
I've always been pushing fundamental changes to the way government operates, while you all seem to think that dumping money into a system full of idiots is going to somehow fix it.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Gangster Capitalism, facilitated by Conservative Businesses and driving the get-away Car… Republican Congress and Bush and then Hamstring Obama and Democrats majority, keeping them from doing little about the THEFT, but not with out the help of Moderate Democrats and Independents abandoning Obama and Democrats, T Publicans House Republicans are going to finish off the middle class and workers.
Holding the Nation as hostages too their Gangster Capitalism, on the CR, one after another and now the Debt Ceiling.
The only responsible thing left is to let Republicans crash the Nation, so they can seen as the real treat, Republicans really are. It’s treat, after treat to crash the Nation, if Republicans don’t get what they want.
I say hold the line and let them do it, or capitulation is what we get. Is this worth it Mr. President, is this a winning Strategy for the Majority of Americans, hurting, suffering, losing ground, in every conceivable way.
Just say No Democrats and let them do it. We have to suffer the Crash to get control back and it is the only way a CLEAN BILL for the Debt ceiling and SHARED SCACRIFICE, will happen and the CALL WORDS, GROW a PAIR Democrats.
I can’t vote for this and I will not stand behind you and defend cowardice.
WHEN do you, we say… THIS FAR and NO MORE, Mr. President, Democrats WHEN. The Nation can’t take any more of this, No and I won’t follow, none of you any more.
Ministerbruce
Is everyone familiar with the concept of "marginal" tax rates? It's the tax rate on dollars accumulated ABOVE a defined threshold. $250,000 is the most common threshold being discussed. The marginal tax rate applies ONLY to those dollars ABOVE the threshold. It starts at $251,000 and only $1.00 is taxed at the higher marginal rate. Is 50% excessive? Hardly. Marginal tax rates are the most effective incentive to attract business owners to the idea of reinvestment and organic growth through labor investment. By maintaining the low marginal rates we are removing any incentive to reinvest in the business. It's "cheaper" to simply accumulate personal wealth that sits idle in a Summer Cottage investment, art collection or car collections. You may argue that Americans should be "free" to do whatever they want with their "earnings" and I agree, but I also recognize that those individuals making more than $250k would never have that opportunity without an educated consumer base, an infrastructure of roads and highways, a trained police force that enforces property rights, a copyright and patent set of laws and so much more. Government is not an "evil", it is a necessity to create wealth. Taxes are necessary to create and maintain a Great Nation as well as the not-so-great. To suggest that any individual that is paid $250k is NOT utilizing the benefits of Government to a greater degree than the Store Manager at Rite-Aid is intellectually lazy or dishonest or has bought Ayn Rand's fictional book as "fact". Paul Ryan has laid out a Path to Somalia. A nation without a functioning government, a predatory tax code focused on the vulnerable and a privileged class built on outright pirating and manipulation.
As for supporting this budget plan, if you are waiting for the MSM or the Congress you do not understand how democracy works. A large faction of liberals are so idealistic they refuse to participate. They throw spitballs at everyone, satisfied with their self-induced delusion of playing "referee". Newsflash for the spitballers, you're going over the cliff with the rest of us. There's no emergency exit or forgiveness for the cynics and the apathetic. Is it really so hard to send e-mails that express support for an alternative to "cut taxes and cut spending" insanity?
Comments are closed on this entry