Right Wing Populism

[Decker]

The Republican Party has learned to play the common man through a perversion of populist sentiments.  First, there is market populism where the free market is an undeniable necessity of democracy.  Everyone is equal in opportunity in the market place and the market is always right.  It’s portrayed as a truth of existence itself.

But when there’s an economic downturn that hurts the common man, the Second type of populism kicks in:  the populism of Backlash.  Backlash refers to the common people’s response to the collection of gripes leveled at leftists b/c of the cultural monstrosities they impose on America:  Abortion, gay marriage, removing school prayer, etc.

These liberal elites are intellectuals who are so arrogant that they think they know better than the common man.  It is this caricature of the upper class: the effete, latte drinking, sushi eating, Volvo driving, Ivy League educated liberal elite that has given the Republican Party its leverage with the common man.

The real man drinks beer and drives a truck.  Liberals are snobs and republicans, well they are not.  Real Americans don’t vote for elitist snobs, they vote for plain-spoken men they could drink a beer with like George W. Bush.  Hollywood and the Liberal Media are the Liberal elite safe harbors where all these nutty liberal ideas are pushed on to the common man through movies, TV and the news.

The distortions and contradictions should be obvious to anyone looking: 

*The upper class is a collection of leftists???  Who owns GE, Clear Channel media, Disney or WalMart?  Is Corporate America left-wing?

*The First populism celebrates sushi eating, Volvo driving consumers as true individuals that don’t have boundaries or compromise with anything especially the mass-produced goods they buy.  The Second populism detests those elites for their purchases.

*The First populism celebrates Hollywood for creative genius and giving the public just what it wants.  The Second populism hates Will & Grace and Hollywood for shoving that leftwing crap down real America’s throat.

*Politically, the First populism is pro-business, anti-regulation, anti-environment, anti-union and in effect, constantly undermining the economic well-being of the common man.  It always gets its tax cuts and deregulation.  The Second populism wants prayer in school, an end to affirmative action, abortion to end, etc., but it never gets what it wants in the form of legislation.

Conclusion:  The free market capitalism that’s idolized permits vested big money interests to run Hollywood and mass consumption to cater to public demand.  The free market gives America healthy doses of Will & Grace and Brokeback Mountain.  It’s not some small group of all-powerful liberal elites ruining America’s moral fiber, it’s the current form of capitalism.  Republican politicians play both sides of the populist fence and are using the average republican voter to improve the lot of the wealthy, even at the middle class’s expense, while zero is done about the cultural issues of the Second form of populism.
 Source: http://mondediplo.com/2004/02/04usa?var_recherche=thomas+frank

[Decker]

See HeadHunter, this article touches on why people in america are confused b/c they are disenfranchised.

This might shock you, but the democratic party carries much of the blame for this.  When Clinton/Gore gave up on the working class/unions and courted corporations as their financial base, the political rug was pulled from under the working class person.

The republicans pounced with brilliant efficacy and results.

[headhuntersix]

Interesting article all the way until it blames Republicans...I would blame politicians. Its a game to these people.

[Dos Equis]

Interesting article all the way until it blames Republicans...I would blame politicians. Its a game to these people.

I agree.  Cannot blame solely Republicans or Democrats.  Money corrupts both parties.

That said, there are distinct differences in liberal and conservative ideology and one is superior to the other in at least some respects, particularly regarding taxes and the size and role of government.   

[24KT]

I agree.  Cannot blame solely Republicans or Democrats.  Money corrupts both parties.

That said, there are distinct differences in liberal and conservative ideology and one is superior to the other in at least some respects, particularly regarding taxes and the size and role of government.   

Yep, ...that's for sure. The ideologies and are different, ...and one is vastly superior to the other, ...however, when both parties have strayed so far from their ideologies, you can no longer look to that as a compass, but instead must turn to the way in which they actually behave. I don't care what someone says. You know them by what they do, ...and when they profess to be Liberal, ...but act like a Conservative, ...guess what... they're conservative. By the same token , ...when they profess to be conservative, yet act like fascist nazi's, ...guess what? ...they are! 

[Dos Equis]

Yep, ...that's for sure. The ideologies and are different, ...and one is vastly superior to the other, ...however, when both parties have strayed so far from their ideologies, you can no longer look to that as a compass, but instead must turn to the way in which they actually behave. I don't care what someone says. You know them by what they do, ...and when they profess to be Liberal, ...but act like a Conservative, ...guess what... they're conservative. By the same token , ...when they profess to be conservative, yet act like fascist nazi's, ...guess what? ...they are! 

There is some truth to this.  Liberals are just wrong on a number of issues.  Some (or arguably many) conservatives don't adhere to true conservative principles.  So what's the answer? 

[gcb]

Probably would help if you weren't stuck with a two party system - people really only have two choices.

[Decker]

Interesting article all the way until it blames Republicans...I would blame politicians. Its a game to these people.

I am not blaming anyone. 

I'm pointing out the political tact that the republicans have used to garner the votes of middle america.

The republicans moved in when the democrats dropped the ball in courting these voters.

[Decker]

I agree.  Cannot blame solely Republicans or Democrats.  Money corrupts both parties.

That said, there are distinct differences in liberal and conservative ideology and one is superior to the other in at least some respects, particularly regarding taxes and the size and role of government.   

While I agree that money is a problem--campaign financing needs to be redone and the Sup. Ct. has to get its collective head out of its ass and not identify free speech with money....and remove the 'person' status of corporations--that's not what I'm talking about in the article.

I'm pointing out the fact that Republicans have a way of commandeering Middle America's vote.  Look at the last 20 some years of national elections.

How's that battle with abortion rights, affirmative action, or prayer in school?  Is government any smaller?  Are the entitlement programs being eliminated?  How about the airwaves, with each passing year is television getting better in its content or more coarse and disgusting?  Is there progress being made on any of these fronts?

No.

But tax rates on dividends, capital gains, and the top marginal rates are at record lows.  Unions in this country are headed toward extinction.  The Estate (death tax) tax is dead.  And there's a lot more.

What exactly are conservatives doing or have done for this country?

[Dos Equis]

While I agree that money is a problem--campaign financing needs to be redone and the Sup. Ct. has to get its collective head out of its ass and not identify free speech with money....and remove the 'person' status of corporations--that's not what I'm talking about in the article.

I'm pointing out the fact that Republicans have a way of commandeering Middle America's vote.  Look at the last 20 some years of national elections.

How's that battle with abortion rights, affirmative action, or prayer in school?  Is government any smaller?  Are the entitlement programs being eliminated?  How about the airwaves, with each passing year is television getting better in its content or more coarse and disgusting?  Is there progress being made on any of these fronts?

No.

But tax rates on dividends, capital gains, and the top marginal rates are at record lows.  Unions in this country are headed toward extinction.  The Estate (death tax) tax is dead.  And there's a lot more.

What exactly are conservatives doing or have done for this country?

I think conservatives have done a lot for this country.  Without them we would probably have a tax rate like Canada, there would have never been a discussion about welfare reform, and the discussion about morality, family values, etc. would be a footnote.  Conservatives force liberals to move to the middle, or even right of center.   

[Decker]

I think conservatives have done a lot for this country.  Without them we would probably have a tax rate like Canada, there would have never been a discussion about welfare reform, and the discussion about morality, family values, etc. would be a footnote.  Conservatives force liberals to move to the middle, or even right of center.   

I think you are correct b/c the democrats are moving right and playing into the hands of the republicans.

Let's dispense with the 'liberal' terminology.  There really is only one or two liberals in the federal government.  All else is moderate or worse.

As for tax rates, it is the borrow and spend mentality that is crushing our country.  But the tax rates are low.  Do you see how that is bad for this country?  A 9 trillion dollar debt and we are still getting tax cuts. 

Smoke and mirrors coupled with retarded fiscal policy is the gift of conservative politicians that will keep on giving to our children and our grandchildren.

Here're the Canadian income tax rates for 2007:
15.5% on the first $37,178 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $37,179 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $37,178 and $74,357), +
26% on the next $46,530 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $74,357 and $120,887), +
29% of taxable income over $120,887. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html#federal

I'd say they are reasonably taxed wouldn't you?  What's the top marginal rate in the US 35%?

The discussion of morality and family values is pure opportunistic bunk.  The republican conservatives talk a good game of God but when the rubber meets the road, Clinton and his V-chip did more for morality than any republican politician of the last 20 years.

[headhuntersix]

26% is way to much...yeah i get it, we have to pay for stuff...but we have way to much pork. The military included as well. We have to many Federal programs and way to much government oversight.

[Dos Equis]

I think you are correct b/c the democrats are moving right and playing into the hands of the republicans.

Let's dispense with the 'liberal' terminology.  There really is only one or two liberals in the federal government.  All else is moderate or worse.

As for tax rates, it is the borrow and spend mentality that is crushing our country.  But the tax rates are low.  Do you see how that is bad for this country?  A 9 trillion dollar debt and we are still getting tax cuts. 

Smoke and mirrors coupled with retarded fiscal policy is the gift of conservative politicians that will keep on giving to our children and our grandchildren.

Here're the Canadian income tax rates for 2007:
15.5% on the first $37,178 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $37,179 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $37,178 and $74,357), +
26% on the next $46,530 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $74,357 and $120,887), +
29% of taxable income over $120,887. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html#federal

I'd say they are reasonably taxed wouldn't you?  What's the top marginal rate in the US 35%?

The discussion of morality and family values is pure opportunistic bunk.  The republican conservatives talk a good game of God but when the rubber meets the road, Clinton and his V-chip did more for morality than any republican politician of the last 20 years.

One or two liberals in federal government?  Ted Kennedy, Biden, the entire Hawaii contingent (Inouye, Akaka, Abercrombie, Hirono), Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Schumer, Hillary, etc., etc.  And that's just off the top of my head. 

I do not see a direct correlation between tax cuts and our national debt.  Congress has mismanaged the national debt for decades, whether taxes go up or down.  Just the whole mindset of permitting individuals to keep more of their own money is one of the major distinctions between liberals and conservatives. 

Regarding Canada, my understanding is they tax about 50 percent of your income over about $100k.

Do I think the government taking 15 to 29 percent of your earnings is reasonable?  Heck no. 

The discussion of morality and family values is very important.  Clinton doesn't even think about a V-chip without being forced to focus on those issues by conservatives.  This needs to be part of the political discourse.  We shouldn't stop talking about these issues because some hypocrites don't practice what they preach.  There is nothing wrong with the message.  Some of the messengers are screwed up.   

[Decker]

One or two liberals in federal government?  Ted Kennedy, Biden, the entire Hawaii contingent (Inouye, Akaka, Abercrombie, Hirono), Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Schumer, Hillary, etc., etc.  And that's just off the top of my head. 

I do not see a direct correlation between tax cuts and our national debt.  Congress has mismanaged the national debt for decades, whether taxes go up or down.  Just the whole mindset of permitting individuals to keep more of their own money is one of the major distinctions between liberals and conservatives. 

Regarding Canada, my understanding is they tax about 50 percent of your income over about $100k.

Do I think the government taking 15 to 29 percent of your earnings is reasonable?  Heck no. 

The discussion of morality and family values is very important.  Clinton doesn't even think about a V-chip without being forced to focus on those issues by conservatives.  This needs to be part of the political discourse.  We shouldn't stop talking about these issues because some hypocrites don't practice what they preach.  There is nothing wrong with the message.  Some of the messengers are screwed up.   

The whole mindset of permitting individuals to keep more of their own money is one of the major distinctions between conservatives and libertarians where it's every man for himself.

Conservatives should believe in sound fiscal policy.  But they haven't since 1980.  Tax cuts for their own sake under the guise of supply side economics has helped push this country's debt to record levels.  Bush cut taxes during a time of war and every single so-called conservative in the government gave him the green light.

That's fiscal insanity.  So you see no correlation between the government's income (tax collections) and its debt?  Practically everyone else in the universe does.  http://www.proaxis.com/%7Erandau2/singles/taxcuts2.htm
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/debtus.pdf

The reduction of of income due to tax cuts leaves obligations unmet.  When obligations are unmet, the debt increases as well as the debt's accumulating interest.

Under Bush, the national debt has tripled.  And this guy is cutting taxes at a record pace.  Just like with Reagan, it will take a fiscally responsible democratic administration to fix the irresponsible excesses of the republicans. 

It makes me a bit ill to see Bush smiling when he says, "It's your money!"....he always forgets the corollary of that statement:  "It's your debt too!"

[Dos Equis]

The whole mindset of permitting individuals to keep more of their own money is one of the major distinctions between conservatives and libertarians where it's every man for himself.

Conservatives should believe in sound fiscal policy.  But they haven't since 1980.  Tax cuts for their own sake under the guise of supply side economics has helped push this country's debt to record levels.  Bush cut taxes during a time of war and every single so-called conservative in the government gave him the green light.

That's fiscal insanity.  So you see no correlation between the government's income (tax collections) and its debt?  Practically everyone else in the universe does.  http://www.proaxis.com/%7Erandau2/singles/taxcuts2.htm
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/debtus.pdf

The reduction of of income due to tax cuts leaves obligations unmet.  When obligations are unmet, the debt increases as well as the debt's accumulating interest.

Under Bush, the national debt has tripled.  And this guy is cutting taxes at a record pace.  Just like with Reagan, it will take a fiscally responsible democratic administration to fix the irresponsible excesses of the republicans. 

It makes me a bit ill to see Bush smiling when he says, "It's your money!"....he always forgets the corollary of that statement:  "It's your debt too!"

Keeping more of your own money isn't about every man for himself.  It's just the antithesis of socialism, which wants to take most of what we make and redistribute this hard earned money to the "have nots" and allow pork barrel spending.   

I said I don't see a "direct correlation" between tax cuts and our national debt.  The links you provided do constitute the universe and provide nothing but an overly simplistic conclusion:  some taxes were cut, debt increased.  Hasn't tax revenue actually increased?  The problem is a bloated government that spends too much money and that has been fiscally irresponsible.  The problem isn't an effort to take the government's hand out of our pockets. 

[headhuntersix]

I want my money....I don't want to give to assholes who haven't worked for it or do nothing to further my country. Very simplistic but accurate.

[Decker]

Keeping more of your own money isn't about every man for himself.  It's just the antithesis of socialism, which wants to take most of what we make and redistribute this hard earned money to the "have nots" and allow pork barrel spending.   

I said I don't see a "direct correlation" between tax cuts and our national debt.  The links you provided do constitute the universe and provide nothing but an overly simplistic conclusion:  some taxes were cut, debt increased.  Hasn't tax revenue actually increased?  The problem is a bloated government that spends too much money and that has been fiscally irresponsible.  The problem isn't an effort to take the government's hand out of our pockets. 

No tax revenue has not increased.  That's another myth floating around.  Tax cuts do not pay for themselves--they never have.

So every tax cut is a bite out of the income stream to our government.  Without enough income stream to cover the costs of government, a deficit occurs.  If a deficit exists at the end of the year we have a debt that must be repaid with interest. 

That is how it works.  That is incontrovertible.  The direct correlation btn tax cuts and debt is undeniable.  Why?  B/c we know the cost of government.  If that cost is not met, then the above happens.


How is keeping more money for yourself the antithesis of socialism which is where the workers own the means of production?


If you are referring to the social safety net that taxes finance, that's something else.  Whatever the terminology, you think that it is wrong for any tax dollars to be used to help the "have nots" or as I refer to them, the elderly, the cripples, the destitute, the widows, the disabled or orphans?

Or if you really need an injection of tax revenue, you could check out the military industrial complex or the corporate giants of america which pay less tax than you or I.

If you don't like the way government spends your money, hold the politicians accountable.  That's entirely different than some irresponsible politician cutting taxes irrespective of the bills to be paid.

[Dos Equis]

No tax revenue has not increased.  That's another myth floating around.  Tax cuts do not pay for themselves--they never have.

So every tax cut is a bite out of the income stream to our government.  Without enough income stream to cover the costs of government, a deficit occurs.  If a deficit exists at the end of the year we have a debt that must be repaid with interest. 

That is how it works.  That is incontrovertible.  The direct correlation btn tax cuts and debt is undeniable.  Why?  B/c we know the cost of government.  If that cost is not met, then the above happens.


How is keeping more money for yourself the antithesis of socialism which is where the workers own the means of production?


If you are referring to the social safety net that taxes finance, that's something else.  Whatever the terminology, you think that it is wrong for any tax dollars to be used to help the "have nots" or as I refer to them, the elderly, the cripples, the destitute, the widows, the disabled or orphans?

Or if you really need an injection of tax revenue, you could check out the military industrial complex or the corporate giants of america which pay less tax than you or I.

If you don't like the way government spends your money, hold the politicians accountable.  That's entirely different than some irresponsible politician cutting taxes irrespective of the bills to be paid.

The myth about the increase in tax revenue has apparently been embraced by the CBO:  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

Socialism involves the government owning and distributing goods, services, income, etc.  That is precisely what the redistribution wealth is primarily about.  The antithesis of this is individuals and the market controlling goods, services, income, etc. 

Regarding the elderly and disabled, I have no problem with my tax dollars being used to help them.  I attended a conference the other day where a wheelchair bound disabled young lady talked about her ability to work a professional advertising job with the assistance of a full-time, state funded assistant.  I think that is terrific and I'm glad my state tax dollars are being used to help her.

I don't have a problem with a safety net.  I have a problem with welfare as a way of life.  I work very hard.  I have a problem with my hard earned money being used to support an able bodied person's refusal to work. 

I have no problem paying taxes for public safety (roads, police, fire, military, etc.). 

I don't believe we need to tax corporations anymore than we already do.  They simply pass those increased taxes on to consumers.  Besides, good corporations distribute their profits, which are taxable income.  Corporations already face double taxation (corporation pays taxes, shareholders pay taxes on dividends/profits). 

The problem is not tax revenue.  It's mismanagement.  And I absolutely hold our politicians responsible.  They are the reason our federal government is in this mess.  They need to take lessons from Governor Linda Lingle:

"As governor her greatest accomplishments are creating a record surplus of $730 million. Before that, the budget was in a $250 million budget deficit. She is also is credited for developing a strong economy, leaving Hawaii with a very low unemployment rate."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle
   

[Decker]

The myth about the increase in tax revenue has apparently been embraced by the CBO:  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

Pardon my phrasing.  Of course tax revenues may increase or decrease during any given quarter.  My point was that no tax cut in the history of the US has ever paid for itself.  A tax cut always comes up a net loss.  Unless you buy into the specific theory of supply-side econ where under particular circumstances a dividend tax-cut may break even.  I don't buy it.

It is undeniable that tax cuts without spending cuts raise the debt.

Socialism involves the government owning and distributing goods, services, income, etc.  That is precisely what the redistribution wealth is primarily about.  The antithesis of this is individuals and the market controlling goods, services, income, etc. 

That is what redistribution of wealth is about but that's not socialism.  Socialism is the worker owning or controlling the means of production including setting the goals for labor/investment.  Einstein makes a brilliant case of it here http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

But I'll honor your definition of governmental redistribution as the heart of socialism.  But first a word about the Market.  The free market in our country is a dubious claim.  There is the free market i.e., law of the jungle (kill or be killed) for the small businessman then there is governmental redistribution for the giant corporations--tax exemptions, relaxed regulations, tax abatements, bailouts, subsidies, etc.

The problem with your pure theoretical capitalism is that it is predicated entirely on individual appetites for acquisition with no provision made for the goals of society as a whole--every man for himself.  Governmental redistribution creates a safety net for the population where we have a moderated meritocracy where the winner earns his due while a small portion of his earnings keeps the losers afloat to compete/contribute another day.  That is eminently superior to the 'winner-take-all' results of an unmoderated laissez faire free market b/c society rewards work well done while permitting the losers to not only survive but remain viable.

Regarding the elderly and disabled, I have no problem with my tax dollars being used to help them.  I attended a conference the other day where a wheelchair bound disabled young lady talked about her ability to work a professional advertising job with the assistance of a full-time, state funded assistant.  I think that is terrific and I'm glad my state tax dollars are being used to help her.

I don't have a problem with a safety net.  I have a problem with welfare as a way of life.  I work very hard.  I have a problem with my hard earned money being used to support an able bodied person's refusal to work. 

Then you must know that if anyone is serious about spending cuts in the federal government, we have to cut one of these:
Social Security (the old people in this country have a very high standard of living--maybe we should knock them down a few pegs?)
Medicare/Medicaid
Defense Spending

I don't see politicians rushing to cut any of those programs b/c it would be political suicide.

I have no problem paying taxes for public safety (roads, police, fire, military, etc.).

Good man! 

I don't believe we need to tax corporations anymore than we already do.  They simply pass those increased taxes on to consumers.  Besides, good corporations distribute their profits, which are taxable income.  Corporations already face double taxation (corporation pays taxes, shareholders pay taxes on dividends/profits).

If corporations truly pass all tax costs along to the consumer, I say, "So what?'  That's exactly how insurance works where the costs are spread amongst a group of people.  It's sensible. 

Anyways, I've seen estimates of a 1/3 of US corporations pay no taxes at all and most of those corps receive rebate checks from the government.  http://www.itepnet.org/corp00pr.pdf

In 2003, 10 US corporations with over $1 billion pretax income each paid zero taxes. http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2005/corporatetraitors.pdf

So corporations pay none of the taxes (or pass the costs to the consumer) while pocketing all the profits where an inordinant amount goes into the hands of CEOs whose pay has increased %500 over the last 23 years.

What a sweet deal that is.  Especially in light of the fact that labor's wages have pretty much stagnated.  http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118005313993514160-ffyvlR98p8u9Sorpc2R_TwOs50w_20070601.html?mod=blogs

The problem is not tax revenue.  It's mismanagement.  And I absolutely hold our politicians responsible.  They are the reason our federal government is in this mess.  They need to take lessons from Governor Linda Lingle:

"As governor her greatest accomplishments are creating a record surplus of $730 million. Before that, the budget was in a $250 million budget deficit. She is also is credited for developing a strong economy, leaving Hawaii with a very low unemployment rate."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle

I agree with you here.  Spending cuts must always accompany tax cuts and everyone will be happy:  No deficit, no debt, smaller government, and less taxes.

[headhuntersix]

If we all sat down and went through the tax system, I'm sure we could slice billions off the defense budget and a myriad of social programs. The things we are paying for in defense are ridiculous. We need a better rifle and pistol, we need better small vehicles that stand up to IEDs. We have them but we need the cash to pay for them in great numbers. We need better coastal defense ships. Rumsveld wanted way to many sexy high cost planes and other syetmes while neglecting the soldier needs.  We need to look at who we give money to world wide. If i was in charge I'd cut it all off and then reaccess where it was all going. I'd tell the folks looking at it that they need to cut it in half and produce an OML based on strategic partnership and need.

[Decker]

If we all sat down and went through the tax system, I'm sure we could slice billions off the defense budget and a myriad of social programs. The things we are paying for in defense are ridiculous. We need a better rifle and pistol, we need better small vehicles that stand up to IEDs. We have them but we need the cash to pay for them in great numbers. We need better coastal defense ships. Rumsveld wanted way to many sexy high cost planes and other syetmes while neglecting the soldier needs.  We need to look at who we give money to world wide. If i was in charge I'd cut it all off and then reaccess where it was all going. I'd tell the folks looking at it that they need to cut it in half and produce an OML based on strategic partnership and need.

Thanks for the inside info HH.  It is an unpopular truth that any serious trimming of spending must include entitlement and defense spending.

[headhuntersix]

Case in point....http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=3477

so u don't have to wast to much time.

1 million for the Museum at Bethel Woods, which is dedicated to recreating the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival experience and will feature “An interpretation of the 1969 Woodstock Music & Arts Fair” exhibit in 2008, according to the museum’s website. The earmark is at the request of New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.
$250,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, which includes among its programs making and sailing ancient canoes from Hawaii to Japan. The earmark is requested by Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.
$100,000 for “Lighten Up Iowa,” an online program encouraging people to lose weight while also preaching the benefits of vegan diets. The earmark is requested by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin.   
$500,000 for the New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium, a project to scan images of herbs and post them online. The earmark is requested by New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.
$100,000 to fund the celebration of Lake Champlain’s 400th Anniversary – an event that doesn’t take place until 2009. The earmark is at the request of Vermont Senator Pat Leahy.



With that cash i could outfit a Bn of guys with new vests, secure hand held radios, gloves, glasses, pouches, bino's, back packets, cold weather stuff, camelbacks etc etc etc. I'm sure u could find a better use as well.

[Dos Equis]

Pardon my phrasing.  Of course tax revenues may increase or decrease during any given quarter.  My point was that no tax cut in the history of the US has ever paid for itself.  A tax cut always comes up a net loss.  Unless you buy into the specific theory of supply-side econ where under particular circumstances a dividend tax-cut may break even.  I don't buy it.

It is undeniable that tax cuts without spending cuts raise the debt.
That is what redistribution of wealth is about but that's not socialism.  Socialism is the worker owning or controlling the means of production including setting the goals for labor/investment.  Einstein makes a brilliant case of it here http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

But I'll honor your definition of governmental redistribution as the heart of socialism.  But first a word about the Market.  The free market in our country is a dubious claim.  There is the free market i.e., law of the jungle (kill or be killed) for the small businessman then there is governmental redistribution for the giant corporations--tax exemptions, relaxed regulations, tax abatements, bailouts, subsidies, etc.

The problem with your pure theoretical capitalism is that it is predicated entirely on individual appetites for acquisition with no provision made for the goals of society as a whole--every man for himself.  Governmental redistribution creates a safety net for the population where we have a moderated meritocracy where the winner earns his due while a small portion of his earnings keeps the losers afloat to compete/contribute another day.  That is eminently superior to the 'winner-take-all' results of an unmoderated laissez faire free market b/c society rewards work well done while permitting the losers to not only survive but remain viable.
Then you must know that if anyone is serious about spending cuts in the federal government, we have to cut one of these:
Social Security (the old people in this country have a very high standard of living--maybe we should knock them down a few pegs?)
Medicare/Medicaid
Defense Spending

I don't see politicians rushing to cut any of those programs b/c it would be political suicide.
Good man! 
If corporations truly pass all tax costs along to the consumer, I say, "So what?'  That's exactly how insurance works where the costs are spread amongst a group of people.  It's sensible. 

Anyways, I've seen estimates of a 1/3 of US corporations pay no taxes at all and most of those corps receive rebate checks from the government.  http://www.itepnet.org/corp00pr.pdf

In 2003, 10 US corporations with over $1 billion pretax income each paid zero taxes. http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2005/corporatetraitors.pdf

So corporations pay none of the taxes (or pass the costs to the consumer) while pocketing all the profits where an inordinant amount goes into the hands of CEOs whose pay has increased %500 over the last 23 years.

What a sweet deal that is.  Especially in light of the fact that labor's wages have pretty much stagnated.  http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118005313993514160-ffyvlR98p8u9Sorpc2R_TwOs50w_20070601.html?mod=blogs
I agree with you here.  Spending cuts must always accompany tax cuts and everyone will be happy:  No deficit, no debt, smaller government, and less taxes.

I agree that tax cuts should be accompanied by a reduction in spending.  My point on the tax issue is this is a major distinction between liberals and conservatives.  The mindset is completely different.   

I don't advocate eliminating safety nets.  I have no problem with reasonable controls in the marketplace.  But this is another difference between liberals and conservatives:  liberals want more government control; conservatives want less.

I don't know about the specifics of the corporations that didn't pay taxes, but I suspect it is because the companies distributed a large portion of their profits to shareholders.  That's one of the primary goals of a corporation.  The oft-repeated claim that corporations don't pay taxes is sort of misleading, because the officers, directors, shareholders, and employees pay taxes on income received from the corporation.   
 

[Decker]

I agree that tax cuts should be accompanied by a reduction in spending.  My point on the tax issue is this is a major distinction between liberals and conservatives.  The mindset is completely different.   

I don't advocate eliminating safety nets.  I have no problem with reasonable controls in the marketplace.  But this is another difference between liberals and conservatives:  liberals want more government control; conservatives want less.

I don't know about the specifics of the corporations that didn't pay taxes, but I suspect it is because the companies distributed a large portion of their profits to shareholders.  That's one of the primary goals of a corporation.  The oft-repeated claim that corporations don't pay taxes is sort of misleading, because the officers, directors, shareholders, and employees pay taxes on income received from the corporation.   
 

The difference I see btn liberal and conservatives today re taxes is that liberals acknowledge the fact that sound fiscal management sometimes requires the imposition or raising of a tax.  Clinton did it with outstanding results.  Conservatives cut taxes even during a time of war--unprecedented in our modern history.  That is not responsible.  I understand the desire to shrink gov. and tax collections but we can't have that at the expense of fiscal competency.

As for corporations, I'm really not concerned as much with taxation as I am with corporate personhood where the business entity enjoys the same constitutional rights as any american person.  Corporations are infinite in life, they don't require air, food, water or have goals for effectuating happiness.  Yet Corporations affect elections which affect real people. 

Re the dividends Corps pay, give me names damn it.  Everybody should have one stock that pays dividends.  A lot of companies choose to plow earnings into executive pay or back into the company.

[Dos Equis]

Case in point....http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=3477

so u don't have to wast to much time.

1 million for the Museum at Bethel Woods, which is dedicated to recreating the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival experience and will feature “An interpretation of the 1969 Woodstock Music & Arts Fair” exhibit in 2008, according to the museum’s website. The earmark is at the request of New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.
$250,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, which includes among its programs making and sailing ancient canoes from Hawaii to Japan. The earmark is requested by Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.
$100,000 for “Lighten Up Iowa,” an online program encouraging people to lose weight while also preaching the benefits of vegan diets. The earmark is requested by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin.   
$500,000 for the New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium, a project to scan images of herbs and post them online. The earmark is requested by New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.
$100,000 to fund the celebration of Lake Champlain’s 400th Anniversary – an event that doesn’t take place until 2009. The earmark is at the request of Vermont Senator Pat Leahy.



With that cash i could outfit a Bn of guys with new vests, secure hand held radios, gloves, glasses, pouches, bino's, back packets, cold weather stuff, camelbacks etc etc etc. I'm sure u could find a better use as well.

   This is insane.