Clinton Leads, Again
Tweet
Video: President Clinton calls for an end to tax cuts for Paris Hilton and a commitment to rebuilding America and equipping our troops.
44 Responses to “Clinton Leads, Again”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
You are right.
It is unfair the top 5% of wage earners pay ONLY 50% of the income tax in this country.
Those stinking capitalist scum should be footing the WHOLE bill for the other 95%.
Do you know why rich people who ‘work hard’ are able to keep their money? Because the rest of us all pitch in to fund the police force to protect their property. Otherwise, we’d all be storming the frigging bastille and Paris Hiltons head would be rolling from the guillotine.
It’s common freaking sense people. You make more money you get more out of society you pay more taxes.
But you see, that’s perfectly alright in the libs world.
Afterall, they can afford it. Who cares if they had work hard to earn it. Or that their tax cut allows them to invest more back into their own companies so they can hire more people.
Hell, I’ll bet that’s what Georgie Soros did with his tax cut so people like Oliver could have a job.
Yes, Paris Hilton worked very hard for her money.
Your income does not equal your “hard work”. If it did, coal miners, teachers and policemen would be the richest folk in society. Those who earn in the top 1% of America’s wealth SHOULD pay a much higher share of the nation’s tax burden. I suppose Brandon and rightisright are part of the 30% of Americans that think they will be part of the top 1% of the nation’s wealth in the next five years. Spare us your delusions, then. The rich won’t suffer by paying more taxes. Nor will the rest of us.
Tax the fucking rich.
It’s about goddamn time.
When I was a kid, nobody wanted to make a million dollars. It was pointless, because the government would take it all. I like that. When I was a kid, the CEO made about 3-4 times more than my dad. Now, CEO’s make tens, hundreds, even thousands of times more than their employees. Why? because they can! It’s insane. It’s time to stop it.
Throw in sports stars, movie stars, and rock stars, and it gets even more ridiculous.
Nobody needs that kind of money. Nobody. Don’t even begin to try to justify it. It’s unconscionable.
There is only one way to get “world-class” rich: sheer, utter ruthlessness. Which is anti-social behaviour, and for which society deserves extensive compensation. Our “free-market” bullshit religion claims that it’s not a zero-sum game, but, guess what? it’s a zero-sum game. The only way to make that kind of crazy money is to take it out of someone else’s mouth, somewhere, somehow.
Another Gulfstream for Paris Hilton, or infrastructure to keep our country running. This is not even a contest.
Tax the fucking rich.
Don’t forget the ultra poor who work two or three jobs just to survive. How rich should these people be. Paris Hilton works hard- yeah ok.
Don’t forget how poor the poor would be, if their second and their jobs (by the way, if you believe anything like even 20% of poor people work two jobs, let alone three, there’s a bridge I want to sell you) disappeared because the wages to pay for those jobs disappeared, because “the fucking rich” (my, what’s up with all the hate? Did a guy in a Mercedes run over your dog?), instead of buying some new thing, or investing in some new thing, or staying in a big hotel, or just eating out in an expensive restaurant, they sent the money off to good ol’ Uncle Sam, to build yet another building named after Robert “Sheets” Byrd, or to send them another welfare check for half of what they would have earned if they had a job.
Pay attention to these two equations, especially you, goatchowder:
1) Rich people’s money – spending = Somebody else’s income.
Something like R – S = N, where N almost equals S
2) Rich people’s money – taxes = taxes – collection expense – administration expense – distribution expense – disbursal expense (to a poor, now no longer working, person)
Something like R – T = t – c -a – d – D. where (t – c – a – d – D) = %55 to %60 of T. Yeah, that’s the way to hurt the “fucking rich.”
Hey Frank, I’m so glad to see you are interested in economics.
One question for you, how is wealth created? I’ll give you a cookie if you get it right.
What goofballs these Repugs are. They like to talk about ‘working hard’ and ‘earning it’ and ‘investing.”
They have no concept of the real world.
Repugs believe there’s a free lunch; that they can spend like there’s no limit on the checks they can write. In reality, they’re just passing the debt to their kids and grandkids. That’s not responsible morally nor economically.
When you have uneducated KISS groupies like Brandon trying to comment about economics and fiscal policy–well, it’s not a good idea.
I served 20 years in the Air Force and retired as a MSgt after 20 years in 1988. My retirement was $700 before deductions. I have been working full time since then and I worked very hard in the military and am workig very hard now. Last year my federal income tax was over $9,000 state tax over $5,000 and Social Sec Tax was over $4000. for a total of over $18,000. That is more than twice as much as my house and car payments. I hope to retire in 5 years when I am 62 and start drawing Social Security.
I am all for either the flat tax where everyone pays 10% of their income or the Fair Tax where the IRS is done away with and all income taxes are done away with and everyone pays a sales tax on all new items purchased. Tax revenues would increase drastically according to whatever % is levied that year. As the country needs more money the tax could be raised 1-2 %. If there is a surplus then the tax could be adjusted down accordingly the next year. There might even be enough money to fund free health care for all Americans who want it. People who make under a certain income would get a check each month from the govt to help them pay their sales tax.
Wasn’t trickle-down tried in the 1980′s. It didn’t work then.
Nothing like a little class warfare in the morning …
No, JD, class warfare has been fought for years and years. It’s about time the poor and middle class start to fight back.
Taxes (ALL fed taxes, not just the income tax that the far right likes to mention) would go down for about 10% of Americans under a realistic “fair tax” plan, considering that estimates of the real tax are about 17-23% on income.
I am always amazed when regular working people defend the rich. Wealthy politicians and corporate executives run their lives in ways they can’t / won’t comprehend. It is a man-made paradigm. Sure some of them got there by little hard work, but somewhere along the line they had people working to create their wealth. It is the goal of a business to pay a worker as little as possible, that is part of Capitalism. So while wages have been declining for real working people for over 20 years the wealthy have been getting richer. I think those that believe the rich pay too much in taxes should send them a portion of their paycheck to ease their pain. Paris Hilton, as an example, got her fortune by paying women as little as possible to clean rooms at her family’s hotels, and the kicker is Americans grovel over her inane antics on television. Meanwhile she is laughing all the way to the bank. Nice little racket they got going on there.
Let me clue all the wealthy apologists into a little secret: you will NEVER be one of them, so come back to reality. They want NOTHING to do with you. You will be a working stiff your entire life. As a sidebar: Flat Tax won’t work, Americans already cheat like hell to avoid taxes. It will just create a Black Market; I won’t buy squat unless it was under the table..
southpaw,
The problem with the flat tax is, it seems fair on the surface but it isn’t.
A person who takes in $100,000,000 a year would pay $100,000, which seems like a lot to us regular people but for them it’s chump change. They will drop that much on vacation.
Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum you’ve got someone making $20,000 a year and paying $2,000. That’s a huge amount of money — that’s the difference between whether or not their kids have shoes, or groceries.
A universal sales tax is even worse, because the rich spend only part of their income (that’s the very definition of what “rich” is — having more than what you need to live) but the poor spend all of it. So you would be taxing the poor at 100% while the Paris Hiltons of the world would pay taxes on maybe 25%, or less.
You were right to point out the problem of state taxes, many people don’t realize they had to go up when Bush cut federal taxes for the rich. The burden got pushed down to the states, who can’t rely on deficit spending like the feds and can’t print more money. So they had to raise taxes to make up the difference. This is only going to get worse in the future.
If you relied on a national sales tax, what would happen to the homeowner’s deduction? Wouldn’t this policy discourage home ownership? Also, a national sales tax would encourage massive fraud.
I know several mllionaires who don’t pay any income tax. Drug dealers don’t pay income tax. At least under the flat tax everyone who works would pay income tax. maybe a graduated flat tax such as under $30,000 would pay 5 % or max of $600. 30,000 – 100,000 would pay 10 %, 100,000 to 500,000 15 %, 500,000 – 1,000,000 would pay 20 % and over 1,000,000 would pay 25 %.
As for people buying homes for the deductions, most people buy a home in the hopes that it will be a good investment and when you get ready to sell you would not have to pay capital gains tax.
A flat tax would eliminate most cheating on taxes, plus it is a small price to pay for living in this country.
Under the Fair Tax (no income tax) I would have an extra $1500 a month to spend instead of having it deducted from my check. I could buy 2 new cars every year if I wanted to plus buy larger and nicer home if I wanted to or invest it if I wanted to. Can you imagine what that would do to the economy of this country if everyone had an extra 30-40 % each month to spend, save, or invest? instead of letting the govt take it from you right off the top?
Why dont we have an income tax system that taxes an incrementing percentage on each additional thousand dollars earned past 20 thousand?
There is an intrinsic value of the mortgage interest deduction built into home values. To eliminate that portion would drop home values and would hurt whom more…working folks. Another plan devised by the rich and for the rich. You don’t see construction workers on TV talking about it, nor doctors, secretaries, sanitation workers, carpet layers, sandwich artists or grocery store sackers. It is the wealthy talking heads and politicians that float these schemes out there to take more from working folks.
Whatever happened to Frank?
Can I just say that’s what’s so frustrating about these wingnuts — they can’t think for themselves. You get them off their talking points and they simply have no idea what to say.
Like dugger, here, ignoring the whole substance of what everyone has been saying, and focussing instead on Paris Hilton. You know what, forget Paris if she is such a big distraction to you. I would like you to explain to us please how soaking the poor is a viable tax strategy for the long term.
OK I’ve got an idea. I’m granting a one-time waiver to conservative ideological principals and will allow an unlimited tax increase on Paris Hilton (secret memo to conservatives: she’s a Hollywood actress, some of her bucks are going to Dem candidates anyway), but nobody else. This takes away Oliver’s argumenty completely since he’s so concerned about his Hollywood bimbo friends.
Dugger, Yet Again Finds a Way for us to get Along
Most of the flat tax schemes involve not including dividend or interest income as taxable income.
Thus, if you’ve inherited a bazillion dollars, you’d pay no federal income tax.
A small point: assuming that you are referring to a 10% flat tax, a person earning $100,000,000 would pay $10,000,000, not $100,000.
Otherwise, carry on.
SadieB: I was doing something else… Not “ducking you”.
I know that the leftist answer to your question is “By labor.” But, that’s not true. The correct answer is “by investment.”
Yes, I’ll explain…
Let’s say I think the world is ready for kids’ sneakers with lights in them that light up when you jump up and down. All the laborers in the world can’t make those sneakers without somebody’s prior capital investment: (At a minimum, materiel, factory equipment, and a factory, built, bought, or rented). Marx. Lenin and Stalin notwithstanding, none of this belongs to “the workers” in any way, shape, or form.
Once the entrepreneur — the guy with the dough — has assembled the the three things mentioned above (at least), he is now ready to hire employees or workers. He puts up a sign that says “HELP WANTED”, and men and women come and as a result of interviews, make decisions like “$11 an hour? — I’m not working for $11 an hour!”, or “$11 an hour? — that’s fabulous! I never made that much in my life!”
And a business is born — and wealth is created. When you go to their waiting room for the interview, they give you free cookies to put up a friendly, folksy image — so I don’t need yours.
Next question?
Oh, yeah, taxes.
The flat tax (with a minimum amount of deductions) works just fine, if, and only if, the tax rate is the same, or less than, the poor would pay already.
It pays off by lowering the cost of running the IRS, for starters. Then it frees up personal income in a noninflationary way, not by government cash infusions (a.k.a “deficits”), or by refunds, but by giving people purchasing power out of each paycheck, i.e., weekly, biweekly, or monthly.
When I think of a national sales tax, I automatically think of Food Stamps, where you can buy cake, candy, and ice cream, but not paper towels, diapers, or toilet paper.
To define and categorize what would be “taxable” and “nontaxable” would have us creating another “Sales Tax Code”, which rivals the Internal Revenue Code” in size. Nope… Don’t wannna do it.
“I would like you to explain to us please how soaking the poor is a viable tax strategy for the long term.”
Which group of “the poor” (hallowed be thy name) is currently getting “soaked”?
The 3 million that were taken OFF the tax rolls by Dubya’s tax cut? How about the po’ who get money back (after paying in NONE) for the child credit?
Of course if you are talking about payroll taxes (Medicare and SSI), I am all for abolishing them
I just think that everyone should pay their fair share in taxes to support the govt. not just the middle and upper income working people. The Fair Tax is fair.
The 3 million that were taken OFF the tax rolls by Dubya s tax cut?
This is one of my favorite things: when people who haven’t the first clue about economics and finance repeat GOP talking points as if they understand what’s being talked about.
First, 3 million weren’t taken off the tax rolls. They were taken off income tax rolls–that’s an important distinction.
Second, folks at the lower-end of the economic spectrum pay hardly any income tax any way–so pretending they just got some huge break is laughable.
Jadegold- I didn’t realize those flat tax schemes were meant to apply to earned income only and not unearned. Incredible. And Mouse, thanks for the math help.
Okay, Frankie, I think now we are getting somewhere:
“Once the entrepreneur the guy with the dough …”
Where does this dough come from? Did it fall from heaven?
If it comes “out of his pocket” then you are admitting I am right. That’s nothing more than another way of saying it fell from heaven. It means you don’t know where it came from, and you don’t want to talk about it.
The problem with your theory of economics is that you assume wealth and then proceed to talk about how to distribute it. This is not the same thing as creating it. Your theory cannot explain how it is created, so you change the subject to distribution as quickly as possible.
It comes out of his pocket…. And, I’m noy playing chicken and egg with you ’til we get to a cavemen making a wheel.
We now that it doesn’t come out of a wage earner’s pocket, because he doesn’t get any wages until the entrepreneur decides to pony up some cash.
SadieB: Stop analyzing me, and get to the point: How do you think wealth is created?
Because if you’re waiting for me to answer, and then tell me the answer is no good, I quit.
If it comes out of his pocket then you are admitting I am right. That s nothing more than another way of saying it fell from heaven.
That’s just simply not true. I told you I was not going to play “chicken and egg” with you; I will not.
Here are some possible of entrepreneurial seed money, among many others:
Pooled risk capital;
Inherited funds;
Saved money;
Sale of valuable assets (similar to inherited funds).
Is that enough non – heavenly funding for you?
Now, if you have a point, will you make it?
Because it seems that if anyone is ducking the subject, it is now you.
What is your phobia with analysis? I’m not doing it, nor was Mouse. I’m just trying to talk about facts and logic here. Maybe you should be talking to someone about this?
Well nevermind.
There is a gaping hole in your economic theory, namely, the creation of wealth. You admitted as much when you said wealth comes from “the pockets” of entrepreneurs. In literature they call that “deus a machina,” or “God in a box.” It means “I have no idea how this happens but let’s just say it happens and move on.”
But I’m not giving you any God in a box, I expect you to be able to explain yourself.
So let’s take a look at your “possible sources of entrepreneurial seed money,” shall we?
Pooled Risk Capital — does that mean money that was made on previous entrepreneurial ventures? Okay, fine. Where did the money to fund those ventures come from?
Inherited funds — again, Daddy gave you money, but where did Daddy get that money? To say it was inherited does not answer the question of where it came from initially.
Saved Money — the same as your “pooled risk etc.” Where did the money come from that you were able to save?
Sale of Assets — this is getting old. Where did those assets come from?
This is what bugs me about you, Frank, you know a million ways to avoid a question but you never answer one outright. In some circles that is considered intellectual dishonesty.
And if you don’t mind a little partisan jab, this is why the economy always stagnates under Republicans and rebounds under Democrats. Because Republicans just don’t understand the basic mechanics of the economy. All they can ever do is run on the gas the Dems left in the engine and leave the thing stalled out by the side of the road.
Been there; done that:
So you give up. That’s all right.
An argument is like a building, if the foundation is flawed it cannot stand. Your economic argument cannot stand. I would appreciate it if you would quit coming around here selling damaged goods because guess what, no one is buying them, and you only make yourself look foolish when you flaunt your ignorance.
If Clinton feels so guilty about his tax cut, then DON’T TAKE THE DEDUCTION!
As usual, Savefarris seizes on the inconsequential details. Sigh.
Maybe you can explain to us how one millionaire not taking his Bush tax cut has any effect on the big picture? Or is the big picture even in your vocabulary? Because if it isn’t, then your opinions on public policy aren’t worth much to the rest of us.
Funny, I didn’t think focusing on Paris Hilton and not the thousands of small business owners who use their tax cuts to grow the national economy was “big picture”. Guess I was wrong, huh?
My point was, of course, the hypocracy. Which is Oliver’s favorite topic when it comes to Republicans. Clinton’s argument means that on some level he thinks the amount his taxes were lowered is less than trivial. So why shouldn’t he, as one who cares deeply about his country “do the right thing” by paying the pre-Bush amount he would have owed? I’d respect his opinion a lot more.
Sadie,
I must admit, you’ve piqued my curiosity. As a small business owner and avowed capitalist, I’m very interested in this mysterious economic theory to which you claim to have special knowledge. Could you please elaborate on how you believe wealth is created?
SaveFerris, your band sucks anyway. Miserable SKA garbage.
Frank_D, my my my, this guy thinks that because he is taking the side of the rich guys, that he is one. Guess what Frank_D, they don’t wan’t you in their club.
Since you never even proposed a theory for the creation of wealth, then the foundation for your argument isn’t flawed, it is nonexistent.
And, yet, I’m glad you’re here to demonstrate how ridiculous liberals and there so – called “arguments” can be.
Actually,no, Bearsh*t, I don’t want to be in their club, even if I could be. I just want their money. I’m sure you don’t, because youre “high on lfe.”
No problem, sam. I love this kind of stuff. We’ll begin with a quiz. Who said this:
“The annual produce of the land and labor of any nation can be increased in its value by no other means, but by increasing either the number of productive laborers, or the productive powers of those laborers who had before been employed.”
Hint, he also said this:
“It was not by gold or silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased.”
Sadie,
The same person who said this:
“Each person is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. . . . By pursuing his own end he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it”
I’m really more interested in how YOU would create wealth Sadie. Not what you’ve read out of a book, but what you’ve experienced.
I would add (fearful of launching into the theological) but where does the land come from?
Hehe.
Seriously, Smith was obviously referring to the labor of slaves which then became tribute, when civilizations were in a barter / currency stage.