Higher Taxes = Patriotism?
I just love whoever is doing McCain’s quick response ads.
Wait a minute…I thought the Left said we’re not allowed to question people’s patriotism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 0856 hrs
I haven’t seen this one on TV yet. As the joyologist once said, “I loveit I loveit!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 0913 hrs
I love the take no prisoners campaign he’s running. 4 years ago Bush acted like he was afraid to say anything bad about anyone or confront the lies. Right now McCain is “kick ass” and I’m excited. And yes, his rapid response team is doing a great job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1029 hrs
Tell you what would be patriotic. Let’s slap a surtax on people earning over let’s say $1 million for whatever this latest round of bailouts cost.
Why patriotic? Then we don’t have to borrow the money from China, who I believe is still Communist country.
What else is patriotic? How about showing up when subpoenaed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1443 hrs
Deficits don’t matter, Keith.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1539 hrs
Keith, ATV, how much extra did you voluntarily contribute to the US Treasury last year? They’ll take your checks, you know. You can give as much of your money to the federal government as you want!
Posted by HeatherRadish on September 19, 2008 at 1556 hrs
You know Heather, how about leaving that childish crap out of the discussion. Sure you feel proud of yourself. At least you are.
This is a serious problem, one that is a threat to our security.
How about a solution instead of fantasies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1617 hrs
You know Heather, how about leaving that childish crap out of the discussion.
If you were honestly sincere about that, you wouldn’t have posted what you did. Oh the irony!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1621 hrs
Tell you what would be patriotic. Let’s slap a surtax on people earning over let’s say $1 million for whatever this latest round of bailouts cost.
This is a serious problem, one that is a threat to our security.
How about a solution instead of fantasies.
OK, Keith. If this is your solution, how much would the surtax be? How much do you intend to raise from all these millionaires?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1628 hrs
Tell you what Jason, whose getting saddled with this mess that many of these execs are walking away from this mess with huge bonuses that salaries they got when they were with these companies? You.
If you want to pay for someone else’s fortune the rest of your life along with all the other attendant problems, go ahead but leave the rest of us out of it.
It’s tough to imagine a bigger flock of sheep just begging to get sheared, and to boot proud of it.
It would be fun to watch if it wasn’t so pathetic. You’re getting screwed and you’re loving it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1631 hrs
Tell you what Jason
Tell you what Keith, keep your childish and immature views of what’s really happening to yourself. You don’t understand economics and you don’t understand tax codes.
Heather’s suggestion was perfectly valid… if you’re so concerned about it, why not send in a check to help. Or better yet, why limit it at millionaires? Hell, the people with a descent job making $40k a year now have 401k plans, they need more taxes taken out too. *snicker*
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1648 hrs
As we witness the many large events (hurricanes, etc) that have happened this year alone, it should be apparent to all that higher tax revenues are in fact needed. The political rhetoric of an election season does not the match the reality of the need for government programs and services when horrible things occur. This past week we saw more evidence of that when large financial interests had to be assisted with federal monies in order to not enlarge the crisis.
There is definitely a need for taxes, and a renewed understanding as to why we pay them. We do so in order to create a better society, and that, in and of itself, is a patriotic thing to do.
So many within the GOP like to proclaim themselves as patriotic by wearing a lapel pin of the flag. That is somehow to show that they love the country even as they fight for lower taxes. As such, it is then harder for all citizens to have the necessities of life, such as health coverage without the needed federal funds that will be required to create such a program. With insufficient revenues it is harder to save the planet from global warming, by not funding new innovative ideas fully that might combat the greenhouse effect.
The progressive side of the political spectrum understands that when we file our taxes each spring we do so as a larger social family of Americans to make life better, and fairer. Not only in the neighborhoods close by with school taxes, but in places far away with foreign aid dollars. Through our tax dollars we make a national investment into the future of the country. When we help college kids with tuition, train scientists who will solve medical riddles through stem cell research, or create new ways to power our transportation systems we build a better nation. To often however, we allow the political rhetoric to distance us from that truth.
Posted by Gregory on September 19, 2008 at 1652 hrs
Tony, I always love these idiotic questions from you guys…“duh, give me how much do you want that tax to be, or how much is to much income, blah, blah, blah.”
Where do you get this nonsense from. That bucket of fat on the AM in the afternoon?
Let’s just leave it at, yeah we are all getting screwed by a bunch of people who took too much risk because hey, they are risking nothing because you will be bailed out by people like Tony, Heather and Jason who are happy to do it. Am I correct?
We’ll work out the little details later.
Tell me Tony? What part am I not getting. That these investment firm guys get to walk away scot free and we have to pay for it?
Or that you think we have to allow this because someday you think you are going to get rich. Sorta like the concept of being a suicide bomber because their are 75 virgins waiting for you in paradise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1652 hrs
Wait… I’m confused…
You know Heather, how about leaving that childish crap out of the discussion.
and…
Where do you get this nonsense from. That bucket of fat on the AM in the afternoon?
Seriously, can you not even see how ridiculous you look when you do that?
Posted by Deibert on September 19, 2008 at 1716 hrs
Keith -
I’ve been over this with time and time again: Washington doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.
That you fundamentally fail to see that puts you on the fringe of the American polity.
I am as opposed to these sorts of bailouts as anyone can or should be - they fundamentally disconnect risk from reward and reward irresponsible risk. (I should add here that AIG did not get a bailout, it got a loan and offered up 80% of its shares as collateral with a tremendous amount of interest due. Additionally, the government - in light of the recent moves by Paulson and Bernanke - stands to make a lot of money when they do unload the shares of AIG and the other debt they are going to buy unless some asshat command-economy types screw up and decide to nationalize everything that moves through our economy).
And because I do know more than you while you regurgitate talking points, I will ask the very legitimate question: how much is enough? I’ll even grant you a progressive scale, because at the end of the day that is exactly the job of Congress in consultation with the Fed and CBO (among others) to determine to ensure healthy federal revenue streams without encroaching on the private sectors ability to remain productive.
So you can discount the question as childish, but people’s lives and well-being are being toyed with while serious people are busy trying to answer that fundamental question.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1720 hrs
Gregory,
I disagree with about 99% of what you said but I don’t have time at the moment to type out as well a reasoned response as your post deserves. I will just say that obviously many people here, including myself, have a MUCH different view than yours of what the role of the federal government should be.
But seriously, thank you for elevating the level of debate. (probably could have done without the “flag pin” cheap shot, but we all let one of those slide now and then.
)Posted by Deibert on September 19, 2008 at 1730 hrs
Spending problem indeed Publius, the bailout to the tune of one trillion.
So how do we solve it? Borrow from the Chinese this country slides down hill as our paper becomes…paper.
How much is enough? What ever it takes? I’ve gotten this question enough from screaming GOP women that I know how to answer it.
Avoiding the problem and act like we can cut our way out of this is not the answer. McCain’s pork comes to about $20 billion. Big deal, get real.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1747 hrs
The progressive side of the political spectrum understands that when we file our taxes each spring we do so as a larger social family of Americans to make life better, and fairer.
You and Mr. Rodgers…
I think of the pork and waste. And how the true patriots of the USA would gag on their ale if they could see us now. And somehow I suspect the entire media spectrum is doing it’s duty, by distracting us with conservative vs liberal issues while both parties in Washington continue to fleece us all.
So when I pay my tax each spring I expect a large portion of it to be wasted. And I wonder what it’s going to take to fix this country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1821 hrs
Keith does have a point, some of the CEO’s have been screwing the compaines. The leaders of Fannie and Freddy, mostly Democrats, have been cooking the books to get their big bonuses. the chairman at Lehmen Bros. got over $30 million for running his company into the ground. The Dem’s have been encouraging bad loans and when the Republicans tried to reform the regulations, the Dem’s fought it.
So what to do now. I am against the bailout for 1 industry, especially if bad or risky behavior is the cause. Further, other industries will put their hand out like the auto and housing industry. Where does it end.
Yes, some companies will o out of business and people will be hurt and thatis too bad. But in the long run, i think this bail out will hurt more people and the economy.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1903 hrs
Tell me Tony? What part am I not getting.
How about the part where you make a proposal with absolutely no thought behind it, then hyperventilate like a five-year-old who didn’t get invited to a birthday party when someone asks you a reasonable question about it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1909 hrs
I’ve gotten this question enough from screaming GOP women that I know how to answer it.
What the hell is wrong with you, dude? Seriously, take a chill pill, and make an attempt to park your misogyny at the curb before you come in here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 1915 hrs
Come on, Keith, there has to be a better talking point than, “So how do we solve it? Borrow from the Chinese this country slides down hill as our paper becomes…paper.”
Do you even know what you are trying to say there? As I explained to you once before, Chinese buying US debt is not necessarily a bad thing - it shows confidence in the US economy to rebound.
Furthermore, the Chinese are still very small shareholders in the US economy - something on the scale of less than five percent, with the American public holding over 90 percent of US issued bonds.
And again, while it may make you feel good trying to get me to defend McCain and suggest that his ideas of cutting pork are the panacea, you grossly misunderstand my position.
I’m no fan of McCain but $20 billion isn’t anything to sneeze at. If you want to write the defense* of the Peace Gardens in North Dakota, the Bridge to Nowhere, the rainforest in Iowa, and the Post Office named after Charlie Rangal, then have it. My remarks about you sitting on the fringe then stand!
And when you are ready to have a legitimate discussion on effective tax rates and their relationship to the economy and government expenditures, let me know. Apparently you are the only one who thinks that is a childish issue. I bet the Nobel Committee would probably disagree with you.
* I’ve also asked you to please enumerate the 120+ times McCain “voted against” women, yet you’ve never answered that, either.
* Or, for that matter, I’ve explained to you the relationship of the dollar to its value as a function of fiscal policy versus monetary policy. You have yet to tell me how I was wrong in that analysis. In that case, as in this one, I knew you would fall back on your China talking points.
So, go back to the Huffington Post or where ever you get your talking points from and try to find those answers for me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 2021 hrs
The one thing I would question, Publius, is the ability of the government to make a killing when AIG and other debt is finally unloaded.
Today’s announcement that short selling of financial stocks is temporarily halted ought to make clear that the assets held by these companies, and in AIG’s case offered as collateral, are worth only a fraction of what they are claimed to be worth.
The fed seems to be reluctant to admit that its’ past policies have fueled asset inflation. In its’ denial that assets are overvalued it seems to be pursuing a liquidity strategy that I think will eventually devalue the currency. Ultimately someone will be left holding a bag of assets that have been devalued either through a liquidation or through the effects of inflation and time. Personally I would prefer we bite the bullet now, but in an election year that appears unlikely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 2147 hrs
So much collective ignorance. Don’t have time to answer this, except Tony you could use some rational answers and hey Dan, as usual blaming the Democrats at a time when didn’t control Congress is, not on the money.
Welcome to 1929, once again brought to you once again by the Republican party.
I’m sending people by to look at this zoo.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 2254 hrs
So much for sticking for you, Keith.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2008 at 2348 hrs
Gregory… That was the most eloquent poetic socialist prose I’ve ever read…
I’m teary-eyed and mortified at the same time. Well done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 0025 hrs
Keith, do you dispute that high ranking Dem’s made a ton off of Freddie and Fannie and they cooked the books?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 0050 hrs
Dan,
You ask your question as if it matters.
The real question is why you would trust either party with the taxpayers’ checkbook anymore, because there is certainly no evidence that they deserve it.
The worst thing about your question is that you seem to think it justifies actions by members of the party you support. “Yeah but look what they did…” is hardly a good reason to do anything.
Biden’s statement was a gaffe, no doubt. But then we should ask the question, is it more patriotic to tax and pay for roads to nowhere, or borrow from China (and our kids) at 5-6% interest?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bridge19-2008sep19,0,4408299.story
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 0648 hrs
May I respectfully correct you Tosa, Joe Biden did not commit a gaffe, we just simply have to shove down certain throats the notion that it was.
With the blow this green light on greed has give the economy and that there will be people walking away from this rich, it looks like the American tax payer is left holding the bag. Looks like e DO have to pay for our rape kits. But sheep like you love to line up to pay.
That’s why Biden is right. In this case it is not only the patriotic duty of those who benefit from this country supremely but because many of them will benefit from this collapse should be wrung out. I don’t know about you guys but I and other Obama supporters are going to stand up for ourselves.
And Dan, I know you like you spoon feeding but this clever little assertion is the usual bullshit. Raines left his company in 2004 and Obama has a whole host of real economists including former fed board chairs as day to day advisors.
Plus McCain has Phil Gramm, the father of the deregulation that brought this mess.
Sorry boys. The American people are catching on to your guilt by casual association crap.
It would be nice if for once you people would operate on facts and cherished myth. We’d be in a lot less trouble because maybe you’d vote intelligently.
Loved the way Andrew Sullivan by the way last night tore into Palin on Real Time.
In one way or another you are going to haver to pay up and taxes have to be raised. Please send your thank you notes to Phil Gramm.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 1048 hrs
Neither “Audacity of Hope” nor 20 years in the pews is casual guilt by association.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 1156 hrs
How about 26 years in Congress pubbie?
Is that casual guilt by association?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 1220 hrs
Were you expecting me to defend McCain’s Senate career?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 1224 hrs
OK let’s back up.
Neither “Audacity of Hope” nor 20 years in the pews is casual guilt by association.
What is that supposed to imply?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 1232 hrs
“Sorry boys. The American people are catching on to your guilt by casual association crap.”
I responded, implying that there is nothing casual about his association with the Rev. Wright. It was to point out the conundrum of sycophantism…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 1243 hrs
Keith,
I am thinking you would be far happier over on the daily koss or whatever that kook moonbat fringe website is that the MaHa Rushie skewers so beautifully. You must have got a large dose of 200 proof Kool Aid and it has pickled your brain.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 1650 hrs
Hey 45, what exactly in your mind do you think I’m against?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 1853 hrs
CLASSIC
This thread is prime example of the right taking it too far when the argument isn’t going their way.
What does Obamas’ former minister have to do with the economy being in the shape it is in. That is your reply when being confronted with the fact that McCain is surrounded by advisors who did many things to bring on this economic collapse. Maybe you are playing offense to the fact that Palins former minister believed he could thwart witches.
Next Keith is accused of being on something pretty wicked to make him think the way he does. Couldn’t possibly be normal life that would drive a man to enjoy a nip or two. Then comes the name calling to deflect the conversation from the fact that it is most definitely MORE of a Republican philosophy that is at fault for our economy than Democratic. McCain can’t even run because he has the author of de-regulation as his advising him for “more of the same”.
The rich are richer and you guys continue to side with republicans even though you are not even rich enough to benefit from the “tax cuts for the rich” that McCain and the Republicans have brought us for too long. Throw in a boat load of deficit and the public is waking to this kind of the Republican brand of management and is sick of it.
I think that this thread should continue through the election to show how far we have come.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2008 at 1553 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 11:08 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).