Obama’s class warfare and incitement to violence bears fruit [Reader Post]

Loading

Barack Obama has a substantial record of using thug-like language:

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”

And there’s the pitchforks:

“My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

And of course Obama must constantly battle the “hostage takers.”

Sometimes you almost have to laugh when you read the headlines (in one day!)

Politico:

White House launches charm offensive with new Republican chairs

USA Today:

Obama vows to fight Republicans — next year

He’s “itching” for a fight. Honest to God you are brain dead if you believe anything Barack Obama says.

One thing you can depend on Obama for is class warfare. Class warfare runs through Obama’s veins:

Obama’s budget: Taxing for fairness or class warfare?

The president calls for more from the richest Americans to ease the load on others, which would reverse a trend that began in Reagan’s presidency. Obama says it’s the way out of the economic crisis.

February 28, 2009|Maura ReynoldsWASHINGTON — From front to back and on nearly every page, President Obama’s new budget plan delivers a stark message: It’s time for the rich to lighten the load on the middle class.

In education, healthcare and an array of other proposals, the budget focuses more benefits on middle-class and lower-income Americans and looks to the affluent to help pay for them.

Obama’s search for an enemy: The President keep beating the class warfare drum

He hasn’t called anyone an “evildoer” or denounced an “axis of evil.” But make no mistake: President Obama is putting together an enemies list.

Strangely, though, those on it are not terrorists or foreign dictators. They are mostly Americans lucky enough to have succeeded through capitalism and democracy.

In the President’s words, they are guilty of being “special interests” and “lobbyists.” The Bush-era tax cuts were merely “an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy” and he will bring fairness by raising taxes on “the wealthiest 2% of Americans.”

His barbs flow almost daily, faulting corporate leaders for “greed” and shirking “a sense of responsibility.” And sometimes he suggests the problem is criminal, as when he defended his plan for an expanded government push into health insurance as necessary “to keep the private sector honest.”

Obama Engages in Class Warfare With His Campaign for Democratic Lawmakers

President Barack Obama is returning to the rhetorical roots of Democratic politics in the final weeks of this election: setting up a battle of the classes.

Presenting Democrats as the party that will fight for the “middle class,” and Republicans as the party that will look out for “millionaires and billionaires,” Obama in campaign speeches and at fundraisers has sought to make his point using a populist lexicon that aligns Republicans with big businesses as the forces behind the worst recession since the Great Depression.

RNC: Obama playing on ‘class warfare and race’

The Republican National Committee Tuesday night accused President Obama of making “an appeal based on class warfare and race” after Obama outlined his party’s midterm strategy of returning people who voted for the first time in 2008 to the polls in November.

Obama, in a video released this week, spoke in the demographic terms more commonly — though very commonly — used by political consultants, saying Democrats must appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

And the fomenting of hate has now become part of the daily lexicon. One cannot watch or listen to the news without hearing of “tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.” Class warriors have taken that ground. The wealthy are the enemy.

And now Obama’s Class War has seen its first action:

Police and fire officials are investigating an arson fire in Sandwich that has a disturbing similarity with a suspicious incident in Barnstable.

In both cases, the arsonist left a calling card, the message, “(expletive) the rich” at the scene.

At 3:30 a.m. on Nov. 24, flames engulfed an unoccupied home still under construction at 16 Boulder Brook Road in Sandwich. Only the exterior of the house had been completed. The home, which was valued at $500,000, had a three-car garage and three bedrooms, but no plumbing or electric service, Sandwich Fire Chief George Russell said.

The heavy damage burned much of the evidence. But the state Fire Marshal’s Office was recently able to rule that an arsonist had set the fire, Russell said.

The following week, on Dec. 2, incendiary devices were found at 43 Trotters Lane in Marstons Mills, law enforcement officials said.

At Trotters Lane, the message “(expletive) the rich,” was clearly spray painted on a fence on the property, Barnstable police Det. John York said.

“F*ck the rich”

Never mind that Obama is a flaming liar:

“When they expire in two years, I will fight to end them,” Obama said. “Just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I’ve championed and that they’ve opposed.”

Never mind that the rich pay more than ever before and there are more paying no Federal taxes than ever before.

In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.[1] This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:

The bottom 20 percent of income earners’ share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006;
The next 20 percent’s share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent;
The middle quintile’s share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
The fourth quintile’s share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.

No, we need to kill the rich. They are the source of all evil. If only they were dead everything would be better. Let’s start by burning their homes. Then we’ll use the pitchforks on the survivors. In hand to hand combat we’ll hit them twice as hard. We’ll kick their asses. Bring a gun. It’s time to fight for it. Punish your enemies.

No one in over 150 years has divided this country more than Barack Obama. He disgusts me.

Update:

In another incident, man shoots up School Board meeting. Reason? The evil wealthy!

My Testament: Some people (the government sponsored media) will say I was evil, a monster (V)… no… I was just born poor in a country where the Wealthy manipulate, use, abuse, and economically enslave 95% of the population. Rich Republicans, Rich Democrats… same-same… rich… they take turns fleecing us… our few dollars… pyramiding the wealth for themselves. The 95%… the us, in US of A, are the neo slaves of the Global South. Our Masters, the Wealthy, do, as they like to us…

He was linked to Media Matters.

Fortunately, shooting a handgun is much harder than it appears.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
65 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Perfect timing.
I was thinking about how demographically white Americans are due to become a minority in the next generation.
So, how would blacks deal with that?
Well, the news is out:

Chicago mayoral candidate James Meeks (a black man) said that only African-Americans should be able to participate in affirmative action programs– and that Hispanics, Asians, and women should be excluded……

“I think that the word ‘minority,’ from our standpoint, should mean African-American. I don’t think women, Asians and Hispanics should be able to use that title. That’s why our numbers cannot improve, because we use women, Asians and Hispanics, who are not people of color, who are not people who have been discriminated against. We fought for these laws based on discrimination. Now, groups that have not been discriminated against are the chief beneficiaries.”

State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) (a black woman) said she agreed with Meeks. Davis said white women should be excluded from affirmative action programs……

“I have friends, plenty of white gals, who are doing very well,. White women don’t need affirmative action.”

I am guessing that, once whites hit that minority status, Meeks/Davis would also be against them, male OR female, being helped through affirmative action.

The stresses that are building along the fault line that separates America’s wealthiest from everyone else are the result of something more than political spin. Perhaps everyone should give that matter some serious thought before there’s a catastrophic fracture. Such things happen. History is full of examples.

Nan G. —

I don’t get your point. Is your point that there are crackpots among the 37 million Black people in America? Well, DUH! And among the 1 million Black people in Chicago, I can almost guarantee you there are thousands of idiots, fools and simpletons along with the brilliant and the sane. So why are you highlighting the opinions of those two people?

Nan, NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND. would draw a conclusion about how 37 million Black people will “handle” the demographic decline of White America by citing two a-holes in Chicago. That, muh dear, is simply nuts.

You want to know how nuts it is? You are drawing conclusions, essentially, about Alan West, Ward Connerly and other Black GOPer cons based on the opinions of the two schmoes you quoted! How dumb is that? What, you think ALL Black people think the same, so the opinions of those two people who you have probably never heard of before . . . what, they count for every other Black person in America? That’s just ‘tarded, Nan.

Here is another one.
Huffpo moderater makes repeated death threats against Conservatives.
http://huff-watch.blogspot.com/2010/12/huffpost-enables-protects-one-of-its.html

How about this one.
Arsonist targets Tea Party partiers
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/205478.php

@ Greg

When in the history of this country was there equality of wealth?

Are you suggesting that you are going to take up arms and kill some wealthy people?

Now now, drj… don’t be confusing, Greg. He still refuses to answer the direct question of what ‘wealth gap’ is acceptable to him. Asking him to go back into history to search for the non existent many just send him over the edge. LOL

James T. Meeks (born 4 August 1956) is a Democratic member of the Illinois Senate, representing the 15th district since 2003.

Monique D. Davis is a Democratic member of the Illinois House of Representatives, representing the 27th District since 1987.

Note: these two represent their constituents as RACISTS.

Ward was anything BUT a racist.
He opposed the quota system of affirmative action in college entry when he served on the UC Board of Reagents.
He was called all sorts of names for his principled stand, most egregiously, ”party black.”
(Can you imagine if Obama were commonly called that?)

As to Allan West, do you think for a moment that man could get elected even as dog catcher in Chicago, Ill?
I doubt it highly.

But, more to your point about lumping people into one bag: how did blacks vote this last Presidential election?
96% for the dems.

If anyone is lumping them into a bag it is they, themselves.

Alan, and before him Ward serve as fine examples of being free-thinking individuals.
More blacks should follow their examples.

@ drjohn, #5:

Are you suggesting that you are going to take up arms and kill some wealthy people?

What I’m suggesting is that they should be willing to pay somewhat higher taxes so that the needs of the nation as a whole can be addressed. Social stability, a balanced budget, and a national infrastructure that isn’t on the verge of collapse is surely their best interest, too. They can’t see this? I’ve always imagined that there was at least some correlation between an uncommon degree of material success and native intelligence.

@ MataHarley, #6:

I suspect what “wealth gap” is acceptable largely depends upon how much insecurity the middle classes are feeling, and how badly the people at the bottom are hurting. There’s also a question concerning what degree of concentration might stall out economic activity. Obviously a top-heavy concentration of wealth magnifies the effect on the entire economy when the wealthiest decide it’s a bad time to spend or invest. When relatively few people hold most of the wealth, thinking so helps to make it so.

All about “feeling” again, eh, Greg? Wanna put a number on that “feeling”?

For all those on the left wailing about how our problems in the US are down to having our top tax rates too low, take a good look at…wait for it…Canada! Yeppers, here’s the country of your dreams, a big beautiful place with abundant natural resources, developed-world living standards, no one starving in the streets, no old folks without anything to live on, and a national single-payer health care system. How much would you (make someone else) pay in income taxes to live there? 60%? 70%? But no, all of this can be yours for the low low tax rate of…29%! Yes that’s right folks, the top tax rate in Canada is 29%. Of course, you’ll pay more to your province, 14.7% to live in lovely and popular British Columbia, a total of…whoops, 43.7%, can that be right? Frak, better not tell those losers living in California and New York, eh? Otherwise they might figure out that they could have the same or lower income taxes and better government services. Well, Canada must be making it up elsewhere, right, like jamming it to those greedy corporations? Lessee, corporate tax rate is…oops again, 18% and scheduled to go down to 15% in the next few years. Dangit! What about social insurance…aw, fudge, that’s 5% compared with FICA of 6.5% (x 2) in the USA. Well then, surely they’re teetering on the edge of collapse under their debt burden…hmm, 53% of GDP as of last year, and ours is, um, well nothing to see here, move along! Ah, I have it at last – they’re not spending as much on their military! Indeed not, at 1.4% of GDP, it’s less than half of ours. Of course, cutting our defense budget in half will barely dent our deficit, so I guess something else is wrong.

How does this economic miracle work then? Well, it might have something to do with the fact that those top rates begin to bite at levels that are half of what’s fashionably called “rich” in Washington. The tax system is therefore much more broad-based, the middle and upper-middle classes bear the load of any government programs they vote for. There seems to be less of an incentive to vote for more programs while expecting a smaller and smaller slice of the population to foot the bill. I would also hazard a guess that Canada isn’t worrying about running an open border with the developing world, and that might have something to do with their costs. Maybe, instead of left-leaning stars threatening to leave for Canada, we’ll see conservatives doing so as taxes inch back towards the good ol’ days of 1970? Maybe not, though – conservatives are too patriotic.

(No offense intended to any Canadians in the foregoing.)

The DOLE is the difference, Doug.

In Canada only 5.2% of all Canadians are on the dole.
In the USA it cycles between 12 and 17%
40% of all US tax forms are filed so the government can send them money back!

I wonder what part of “Thou shall not steal” and “Thou shall not covet anything of thy neighbors” some people don’t understand. I guess if you get the mob to do it for you, you’re in the clear.

My fix is a 70% tax on anyone who supports marxist/socialist/progressive ideas plus a 50% tax on their assets and a 100% estate tax. This will either shut them up, drive them out of the country, or have them put their money where their mouth is before they preach to the rest of us. Sounds like a win, win to me.

Greg,It’s a fact that no matter how much the Govt taxes, the corrupt Socialist DemocRATS will spend it all and then some, followed by more demands from the “rich” to “pay their fair share.” These people have tripled the budgets for Education over the last 12 years with no improvement whatsoever in test scores,only increases in Union salaries and perks. EXPROPIATION OF WEALTH AND PROPERTY SURE WORKED OUT IN CUBA EH, GREG?

re: #12:

There have been all sorts of specific numbers that have come up during the course of the debate.

A taxable income figure of $250,000 comes immediately to mind. From that point down, the Bush tax cuts would have remained in effect. Above that, pre-Bush tax rates would have kicked back in. That admittedly modest step in the direction of fiscal sanity was actually passed in the House a week or so back, as I recall, over almost unanimous Republican opposition, but stopped dead in the Senate. Much as just about every other significant legislative initiative Democrats have attempted over the past 2 years has been stopped dead in the Senate, by a group of peckerwoods who reflexively oppose anything and everything that might somehow reflect favorably on Barack Obama. Unless, of course, it puts money directly into their own pockets and directly into the pockets of the richest 3%, in which case the little dollar signs will light up in their beady little eyes and they’ll sell out on most anything else, no matter what they’ve told their voters previously. The single most significant item of legislation they didn’t manage to obstruct they’ve done everything in their power to discredit, and vow to overturn.

Failure to ratify the START treaty is a shining example of the good they’re accomplishing for the nation. Virtually every authority on the issue–republicans and democrats alike–have supported prompt ratification. I’ve yet to hear any coherent argument explaining why it shouldn’t be ratified. Yet they haven’t allowed it. What the h-ll is their malfunction?

Greg: A taxable income figure of $250,000 comes immediately to mind. From that point down, the Bush tax cuts would have remained in effect. Above that, pre-Bush tax rates would have kicked back in. That admittedly modest step in the direction of fiscal sanity was actually passed in the House a week or so back, as I recall, over almost unanimous Republican opposition, but stopped dead in the Senate.

So, using your lib/prog logic, it was okay to “lose” $483 billion in revenue in “tax cuts” (Bwahahaha) if you gained $81.5 bil in tax increase revenue from those evil “wealthiest of Americans”?

@ Greg, Tell me what happens when the Evil 3% decides to cash in their chips and sell their businesses to Foreign Investors who take ALL of their profits overseas to THEIR Investors?

The AIG Bailout was a prime example of that in case you missed it.

@ MataHarley, #15:

So, using your lib/prog logic, it was okay to “lose” $483 billion in revenue in “tax cuts” (Bwahahaha) if you gained $81.5 bil in tax increase revenue from those evil “wealthiest of Americans”?

If logic ruled, the entire package of Bush tax cuts would have been allowed to expire, high-end taxes would be raised a bit higher than they were before, and spending cuts would be imposed that would affect nearly all federal programs.

Greg: If a hard working American, by the sweat of his brow and spark of his intelligence earns an income of 5 million dollars in one year, what is the percentage of his income that the federal government should take?

In other words, how much of his income (income and not capital gains, investments, etc…) should he be compelled to hand over to the government?

Please give a number – a percentage.

Nice people. Would any country want them?

Learn to shoot and arm yourself.

Getting to the time where we need to run the Marxists and One Worlders out of this country. That includes the UN.

@Greg,

I want to know the same thing as Mata; just how much SHOULD “the rich” pay? You might as well tell us what your definition of “rich” is, since it would have to be codified into law to be actionable

So your answer Greg, is to raise taxes during a recession. You’re a fiscal genius. 🙄 Keep that up and Larry will decide to quote you as an economist simply because you agree with him.

Getting to the time where we need to run the Marxists and One Worlders out of this country. That includes the UN.

Let’s start with Greg.

LIBERTY ON 11, what a great idea, for 2012 election

What I’m suggesting is that they should be willing to pay somewhat higher taxes so that the needs of the nation as a whole can be addressed. Social stability, a balanced budget, and a national infrastructure that isn’t on the verge of collapse is surely their best interest, too. They can’t see this?

I sure can, and don’t forget having a strong defense as well. Even with a flat tax, someone who earns twice as much pays twice as much, more if there’s a cutoff at the low end. Progressive brackets exaggerate this further. What those on the left don’t seem to get is that marginal rates matter too. When you’re keeping less than 50 cents on an additional dollar, your incentive to work is reduced. By the time you’re keeping 10 cents on the dollar you have almost no incentive left. Can’t you see that? You seem to think that high earning professionals and businesses will just continue on as if nothing’s changed while the tax system extracts more of the fruits of their labor. At some level the argument seems to boil down to the fact that they could easily live on the same net income as someone who earns less, which is true, but misses the point – why work harder if the outcome isn’t going to be much better than slacking off? This flows all the way back to early life decisions to stay in school, study, get an advanced degree, perhaps going into debt, or alternatively taking the risk to start a construction business, etc.

I will ask you to consider another problem that’s always neglected in these discussions, and that is the taxation of inflation. As bad as it is to pay a high marginal tax on a dollar of real income, anyone trying to get ahead by saving for their future is hit again and again with high taxes on their investment income. If you refuse to play Wall Street’s greed game, you’re probably saving your money in bank CDs, like my mom. Even before the crisis, you might have earned 4% on your savings. After paying half of it in taxes, you’re left with 2%, an apparent nominal gain. However, since the inflation rate was 3%, you’ve actually lost 1% of purchasing power. Things are worse now with inflation at 2% and at best 2% interest rates on savings. The limits placed on IRAs and 401ks are too low for professionals to save an adequate amount for their retirement in tax-deferred accounts. So, this “taxflation” problem becomes worse and worse as you get older. You eventually reach a point where you cannot fill the leaky savings bucket fast enough to overcome the taxflation losses. If taxes were levied only on real dollars of income, or if retirement account contribution limits were much higher than they are today, you’d get a lot less complaints from those of us who have been productive and are prudently trying to save so that we won’t burden society with our retirements.

I suspect what “wealth gap” is acceptable largely depends upon how much insecurity the middle classes are feeling, and how badly the people at the bottom are hurting. There’s also a question concerning what degree of concentration might stall out economic activity. Obviously a top-heavy concentration of wealth magnifies the effect on the entire economy when the wealthiest decide it’s a bad time to spend or invest. When relatively few people hold most of the wealth, thinking so helps to make it so.

Those wealth gap analyses ignore a lot of “off books” indirect ownership of wealth. As an example, the many people with union pensions who are either receiving them or owed them; the funds invest in the same space of projects as private savers. As another example, the enormous wealth piling up in foundations, university endowments, etc. As still another example, federal pensions which represent a claim on future tax dollars and therefore a future claim against the earnings of everyone. A public-sector retiree here in California leaving with a $100k pension, COLA’ed for life and with health benefits, has an entitlement that a private sector worker would need $2 million in savings to replicate. Very few of us have done so, and those of us that have, are attacked as “rich” and “not paying our fair share”.

I’ll go a little further and ask, if wealth disparities are bad as a matter of deeply-held principle, how then do we justify the wealth gap between our country and the poorest countries elsewhere in the world? Why stop redistribution at our borders, if eliminating inequality is the moral imperative? I think you allude to the true underlying motive behind in-country redistribution – an attempt to “buy off” a permanent underclass to avoid civil unrest, as well as to “purchase” their votes for political power. I find such a motivation cynical and a bit sad.

I will give you my view FWIW: wealth disparities are not per say a bad thing. They are going to arise out of differences in skill, motivation, and, yes, luck. One need look no further than any professional sport to see this. What is bad is people living in squalor, starving, or lacking needed medical care. Thinking again about my question of redistribution outside our borders, the simple answer there is that we would bankrupt our country in the process, and in the end do no one any good. If we’re not strong, we can’t help anyone else.

Obama’s deficit commission is IMO on the right track in suggesting that we need to keep marginal tax rates low and start with eliminating loopholes and complexity. How about, instead of trying to push tax rates towards 50% (I’m including the high state income taxes that most of those high earners have to pay), we keep the current rate structure and eliminate some of the potpurri of deductions, as well as frankly outrageous loopholes like the carried interest rule for hedge funds?

I’ll throw one more thing out, based on a rather heated debate I had with a friend last week on this topic. What’s the goal of raising the tax rate? Is it to feel good about taking more cash from high earners, or is it to raise revenue? The former seems like nothing more than envy, and I find it indefensible. If the goal is to raise revenue, I submit to you that the post-WW2 evidence shows that this is unlikely to raise more than about 1% of GDP. Federal tax reciepts have hovered between 18-21% of GDP since the war, regardless of the marginal tax rate. They’re down to 15% due to the current crisis. Income taxes make up 45% of the total, while payroll taxes make up 20%. The rest comes from corporate taxes, excise taxes, etc. If push came to shove I would grudgingly accept a return of the 40% federal rate above $1.5 million, a level that’s equivalent to where the top bracket was in 1970, bearing in mind that this pushes us very close to an effective 50% rate in the big blue states, and over it if you throw in the 3.8% medicare surtax in 2013, something I hope is repealed. Having done so, I would ask where you plan to get the other 5-10% of GDP we’ll need to cover shortfalls in social spending in 2030 and beyond? I worry that the left will keep pushing us back towards the pathological 1970s tax regime as the budget problems come hurtling towards us in the out years. If revenue raising is the true goal, which I think is defensible, then let’s see a long-term plan where as much crap as possible is cut out of the budget, and then if there’s still a shortfall, let’s discuss a VAT. I know I’ll take some rocks for suggesting it, but if you look at the projections, there’s no way we’re not going to have a budget implosion without either slashing medicare drastically, or raising at least 5% of GDP via some new tax that breaks the post-WW2 dynamic. This is where I think my friends on the right are being disingenuous – bash the Democrats over “death panels” but then no credible plan to avoid them.

Greg, why not take a good look at who’s really going to be affected by higher income tax brackets. Because the spin of “tax breaks for billionaires” is at odds with dropping the hammer on people with $250k incomes, most of whom are not billionaires. It really steams me to hear members of the uber-elite call for higher income taxes, which in the end will affect them little or not at all. In fact, by pouring grease down the ladder of success they make it harder for anyone of more modest success to join their ranks through hard work and saving – only ball players, movie stars, and hedge fund managers need apply for membership in the club, is that it? Buffet, Oprah, Gates, Gore, etc. have vast personal wealth that compounds year after year without any tax consequences, no matter what the income tax rates are set to. But hey, here’s an idea: how about a property tax on large fortunes? We’ll give you an exemption of $1 million for every year you’ve lived, beyond that, you pay 1% of mark-to-market assets. A 30-year-old ballplayer with $100 million will owe $700k in tax. Soros would owe $140 million on his $14 billion net worth. Think they’ll go for it?

Doug on 9, I see a lot of AMERICAN BUSINESES BYING LAND AND BUILDING
on the east coast, and they are welcome like brothers, IT’S VERY GOOD ,BECAUSE A LOT OF ASIAN AND EUROPEAN AND ARABS ARE ON LINE TO GET IN ALL KINDS, SO DON’T
LET THEM DO WHAT YOU CAN DO FIRST, AND BETTER

DOUG; WHAT THEY ARE AIMING AT IS TO KILL THE IDEA OF CAPITALIST THAT PROPELLED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE HIGH SSTANDERD OF A UNIQUE SUPER POWER;
this is what they want ; change AMERICA forever, remember what he said.

more of, IT’S like no more opportunity for all to make it sucsessful,
HE IS SELLING THE SOUL OF AMERICA TO OTHER COUNTRYS WHO HELP HIM GET TO
WHERE HE IS NOW.

SOMEONE LIKE HIM WITH THE POSITION HE IS, SHOULD NEVER ADVOCATE VIOLENCE,
HE WILL GET THE BLAME RIGHTFULLY, IF ANYONE SHOOT ONE THAT ATTACK HIM,
AND RIGHT FULLY ALSO.

I repeat:

I consider our most successful foreign policy was with Libya. There was a time when all you heard on the news was Qaddafi, Qaddafi, Qaddafi, till you were sick of it. Then one day a U.S. missile arrived at his front door. Suddenly there was silence and you rarely heard his name again. I bet most people today have no idea who Qaddafi is.
It is beyond my understanding why Ahmadinejad’s plane did not mysteriously disappear over the mid-Atlantic. Bush: “ Gees! I don’t know what happened. Sorry to hear that. Would you like us to help search for the wreckage?”. After such a tragic accident I’d be willing to sit down and talk with Chavez, Hamas, and that Korean guy and I bet the talks would be very fruitful.
The louder the anti-war crowd screams the bolder the dictators become. (05/29/08)

I didn’t think Greg would have the cajones to answer my question:

Greg: If a hard working American, by the sweat of his brow and spark of his intelligence earns an income of 5 million dollars in one year, what is the percentage of his income that the federal government should take?

In other words, how much of his income (income and not capital gains, investments, etc…) should he be compelled to hand over to the government?

Please give a number – a percentage.

anticsrocks, hi, I think your blog is very serious and nice, thank’s for showing it,
bye

Sorry if my comment starting with “I repeat” didn’t fit in. It was meant for a different thread. Will re-post in the proper place. Thanks

Thanks ilovebees, I started blogging when I saw how far left our country was moving. It is a very small effort, but it is my way of fighting back.

I won’t be holding my breath for Greg to answer me.

@ anticsrocks, #31:

I didn’t think Greg would have the cajones to answer my question:

Greg: If a hard working American, by the sweat of his brow and spark of his intelligence earns an income of 5 million dollars in one year, what is the percentage of his income that the federal government should take?

In other words, how much of his income (income and not capital gains, investments, etc…) should he be compelled to hand over to the government?

Please give a number – a percentage.

Considering how high the top federal tax rates have been in the past, I wouldn’t consider a return to the pre-Bush rate of 39.6% at all unreasonable. I’m not certain at what point that should kick in. $250,000 might be too low. Perhaps $1 million? Above $5 million even higher rates might be appropriate, but I don’t believe they should ever exceed 50% as a matter of principle. Those involved in private enterprise shouldn’t be put in a position where they’re working more for the government than for themselves. They are obliged, however, to support the entire system that they conduct their business within, and to pay higher dues for the higher level of rewards they obtain from that system.

Since we seem to like clear statements of percentages, perhaps I’ll throw out such a question myself:

While the total wealth of a nation is not a fixed amount, it is at any point in time a finite amount. What maximum percentage of the nation’s total wealth do you believe the top 10% of the population can hold, before serious problems set in for the rest of the population?

Clearly things wouldn’t go well for the rest if the top 10% owned 100%. (Nor for the top 10%, ultimately. The peasants would burn down the manor house and take back the fields.) In modern America, what percentage represents the tipping point?

GREG, YES, THAT’S WHAT THE LEADERSHIP ADVOCATE TO THE POORS PEASANT, TO BURN THE MANOR OF THE RICH, AND TAKE FROM THEM WHAT YOU CAN,
WELL THIS IS ENCITING THE POORS TO FIGHT THE WRONG WAR,
THEY SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING AS A MODEL TO THEM AND CHANGE THAT GOVERNMENT IN 2012 SO TO SEE THEIR ANGERS CHANGE INTO HOPE FOR THEIR CHIDRENS FUTURE AND THEMSELF TO BE APPEASE BY A NEW GOVERNMENT WHO DOESN’T CALL THE RACE DIVISION, AND DOESN’T INCITE THE POORS INTO FIGHTING THE RICHS, BECAUSE WITHOUT THE RICH TO HELP THE POORS , IT WILL BE CHAOS AND DESTRUCTION FROM THIS GOVERNMENT WHICH WONT HELP THE POOR OF ANY RACES WHEN THEY ARE ELECTED AGAIN, WHAT THE POORS HAVE NOW WONT CHANGE ,UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT CHANGE, THAT IS THE EASIEST WAY FOR THE POOR TO UNDERSTAND,
CHECK IT UP

@Greg,

If we assume that wealth accumulation is a function of hard work, discipline (living well within one’s means, and/or wise investment choices, the answer is that the reasonable percentage is whatever naturally occurs.

An analogy might help: there are a thousand gold coins at the top of a mountain in the middle of an isolated island country that has a population of 100. Every citizen has the opportunity and means to climb the mountain as often as they wish, with each trip allowing a citizen to take one coin each day. If every citizen were to put forth the same effort, making the trip up and down the mountain each day, each citizen will have ten gold coins after ten days.

However, some of the citizens decide it’s too much effort, or decide they don’t need ten coins. At the end of, say, 120 days, there will be an unequal distribution of gold coins. For argument’s sake, let’s say that at the end of thirty days, 25 citizens have 2 coins apiece, 60 citizens have 5 coins each, and each of the remaining citizens has 120 coins.

The top 5% of the population holds 60% of the wealth, the middle 70% holds 35% of the wealth, and the bottom 25% of the population holds just 5% of the wealth. Would you want to redistribute the wealth? If so, what would be the rationale for the wealth redistribution?

It might FEEL unfair that the distribution is skewed, but is it REALLY unfair?

Jeff

@ ilovebeeswarzone, #36:

I was only asking a question, bees, the same way that I was asked a question. It’s intended to make people think about something.

I’d be the last person to advocate burning down anybody’s manor house. I don’t advocate that line of thinking; I worry about it.

Numbers have come in for the Alberta economy( ending Nov ). Unemployment at 5.6 %. West Texas crude at 87$ ( averaged ). 68% of all companies will be hiring in the new year (generalized ). Real estate has recovered from the two year low of 08 and 09. Agriculture is going to boom because of the ethanol fiasco. Yes, the evil corporations are going to hire again.

Robert Kennedy Jr. came to Alberta for speaking fees and pledges for his environmental sacred cows. He started to bitch about some politicians and energy development. Public opinion booted his asss out of the province.

Congratulations are in order for the states of Pennsylvania and West Virginia for the development of natural gas. The company stocks are gaining momentum. Where are the gangrene jobs?

GREG ,THANK YOU FOR STRAIGHTING THIS UP, AS WE KNOW THE BURDEN THAT THE POORS ENDURE WITH THE COMING OF MORE POORS TO THIS COUNTRY FROM THE OPEN BORDERS
THEN IT WAS NOT WISE FROM THE LEADERSHIP TO JUST SAY TO THEM , IT’S THE FAULT OF THE RICHS, AND GUIDE THE POORS INTO VIOLENCE TOWARD THE RICHS;
WHEN WE KNOW WHERE THE RESPONSABILITY LIES ON THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING EVEN BEFORE IT COMES, THEY THINK THEIR NAMES AND JOBS ARE SOLID ENOUGH
THEY ARE RUINING THE COUNTRYS WITH BAD DESISIONS OUT THERE, AND THEY TRY TO REDIRECT THE FAULT ELSEWHERE, BUT THE PEOPLE ARE NOT FOOLED EASY.

@ JVerive, #37:

An interesting argument. I think that the metaphor might not be an entirely accurate reflection of the reality, however.

One trip a day, one coin at a time implies an equal reward for an equal degree of effort, with the final distribution being a perfect reflection of the time and effort put in. Our economic system doesn’t actually work that way. We’ve got a CEO-to-worker pay ratio in some industries of 300:1, for example. Coins can be used to buy the time of others to gather more coins on one’s behalf. Some are born to enormous, pre-existing accumulations. How wealth concentration comes about in the real world is a very complex subject.

oil guy from ALBERTA, WISH YOU AND FAMILY THE BEST OF HOLLYDAYS AND NANOOK

Merry Xmas to all of yas and thx bee warrior. The mighty Kanoo had to be put down because of a terrible accident. Hurts like hell, but he is still awesome.

oil guy from ALBERTA, OH SO SORRY, ABOUT KANOO, I know how much it hurts
best to you

@Greg: The Clinton tax rate for top marginal being 39.6% means that with federal, state and local taxes, the people who create the jobs in this country are paying over half of their income to the government.

As for the “tipping point” question you pose, well let’s look at that.

You said:

What maximum percentage of the nation’s total wealth do you believe the top 10% of the population can hold, before serious problems set in for the rest of the population?

Clearly things wouldn’t go well for the rest if the top 10% owned 100%. (Nor for the top 10%, ultimately. The peasants would burn down the manor house and take back the fields.) In modern America, what percentage represents the tipping point?

First of all, the top (insert number here) per cent cannot hold ALL the wealth. You are still thinking of wealth as a zero sum game. You still see it as a “rich” class gaining wealth at the expense of a lower class. Get away from that line of thinking. It not only does you no good, but it is not based in reality.

As the wealthy among us gain more wealth, they provide jobs that help others gain more wealth for themselves also. A rising tide lifts all boats is a great analogy.

You also said:

We’ve got a CEO-to-worker pay ratio in some industries of 300:1, for example. Coins can be used to buy the time of others to gather more coins on one’s behalf. Some are born to enormous, pre-existing accumulations. How wealth concentration comes about in the real world is a very complex subject.

The CEO of those corporations have put in years and years of hard work to get where they are. They have paid for expensive educations, worked their way from the bottom rung of the ladder, gone without to get where they are. So those large CEO salaries reflect that. Those salaries also reflect the bottom line of the company. When it is improved, they get bonuses. To say that because they earn 300 times more than the lowest paid company employee is unfair is just nonsense. If that lowest paid employee puts in the time, hard work and sacrifice, they might find themselves as CEO one day.

As for those born to enormous wealth, they may be the only ones who have not put in the hard work to make it where they are. But make no mistake about it, they are the exception to the rule. Besides, if they do not put in the time and effort to maintaining the fortune they inherit, it will be gone, so once again, the market equalizes.

In summary, I don’t believe that there can be a “tipping point” in wealth distribution. As the top tier of income earners make more money, they behave in ways that present opportunities to those who make less income; thus allowing that lower tier of income earners the chance to make more money too.

ANTICSROCKS, HI, I read some quote that go like this: I WILL WORK 8 HRS A DAY AND MAYBE SOME DAY ,I WILL BUY THE COMPANY AND WORK 12 HRS A DAY,
I thought that sums up many argument, bye

@ilovebees – LOL, brilliant commentary from you, as usual!!

Greg, you’re missing the fact that we are already in the mid-40% range when you look at federal, state, and medicare taxes. A Californian faces a combined rate of about 43-44%. Bring back the Clinton tax regime and you can tack on another 5% or so (including the effect of the itemized deduction phaseout). Don’t forget Obama’s new 3.8% medicare surtax on investment income, which will bump the number further still. And of course there was a lot of talk during the 2008 campaign of a 4% FICA surtax on high incomes. There is definitely a lot of pull from your side to move the bar past 50%, though the complexity of the proposals acts to fool high-income voters in states like California and New York into misunderstanding the true combined effects of the proposals.

As for wealth disparity, that question cannot be answered without knowing the absolute levels of wealth involved. Because beyond a certain point, a wealthy individual can only consume so much. Let me turn your question around: would you rather live in a mud hut on the edge of starvation in perfectly equal misery with those around you, or live in a modest home with many material possessions and little worry about your next meal in an unequal society like ours? It’s pretty obvious that, disparities nonwithstanding, a lot of people are literally voting with their feet to come here. Let me ask you another question: what, in your judgement, is the cause of the wealth disparity you lament? Is it lack of even more progressive taxation?!?

Even Obama’s Chicago-school economists (interviewed in 2008) admitted that we can’t turn back the clock to the 1950s and 60s. After WW2, the rest of the industrialized world was largely destroyed, and it took decades for them to rebuild. In the decades since they rebuilt, the under-developed world has been lifting itself out of povertry. These huge global forces have meant that the market value of unskilled and low-skilled labor has stagnated, while the value of highly-educated and highly-skilled labor has advanced. The left seems to view this as a problem, and yet, having flagged it as a problem, offers no practical solution. Instead we see a toxic mix of the following non-solutions: trade protectionism that makes all parties worse off, unionized labor that allows a minority of workers to exact above-market wages while the majority are still screwed, and make-work government jobs. Then, after all that has failed, income redistrubution which is not wealth redistribution. Education? Not everyone has the aptitude to become a brain surgeon. We’re currently pushing a lot of young people into degree programs where they graduate heavily in debt and without an economically valuable degree. One thing that might help is to at least stop importing larger numbers of low-skilled workers, and yet the left rises to oppose any efforts to secure our borders. And again, despite the inequality, those low-skilled workers still want to come here. Because, in the end, a position at the bottom rung of the ladder here is still better than where they’re coming from, and most of them understand that they, or their children, will have an opporunity to climb that ladder.

Read this elsewhere and the bizarre phrase “Mercenary Army” nagged at me until I finally spent some time tracking down its origin. This is a headline created by Pat Dollard for his blog and posted over a story from Politico. His blog has the motto “The War Starts Here” and a photo of a young man dressed in military gear in front of the flag.

The “Army” to which he is apparently referring is six Democratic Senators who met with the President and his staff in 2009 regarding the upcoming campaign. The statement in question referred to campaign ads, the precise words were actually (as quoted in the body of the text from Politico) “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard”, and the speaker wasn’t the President himself but rather his deputy chief of staff Jim Messina.

http://patdollard.com/2009/08/obama-to-his-mercenary-army-hit-back-twice-as-hard/

I find this fascinating. The list is ALL OVER the web, it has been cut and pasted repeatedly into the comments under just about every story even tangentially about the shooting or the aftermath, and this particular line is wrong in every single detail — wrong words, wrong speaker, no money and no military. If I had the time I would vet the rest of the quotes, but I’ve got to say, based on the total and complete inaccuracy of this one, the whole thing is probably junk.

@crowepps: Nope, Obama didn’t say it….the White House did say “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” which is what Pat referred to I imagine. The rest of them after 5 minutes of searching:

Get in their face:

Bring a gun

Quell anger

Ass to kick

Hand to hand combat

Fight for it

Punish your enemies

@Curt: Find the use of the phrase “mercenary army” just weird. On the evidence of his website, Pat is obsessed with aligning himself with the military, not uncommon in men his age, but why label six United States senators an “army”? Or imply they’re fighting for pay? Whoever picked up that fake quote and included it sure screwed up.

CURT ,hi, I bet by saying those the AMERICANS purchase more guns then ever before,
coming from a president it’s unbeleiveble,

@ILOVEBEESWARZONE: Actually militaristic swagger and cowboy/gunfighter analogies are real common themes in rhetoric here and have been for quite a while — certainly President Regan and President Bush used them a lot, and quotes from Teddy Roosevelt and other presidents bristle with tough guy talk.