The artist here didn't quite go back far enough in history, failing to show that prior to Hoover taxes were just as fascinating. In 1916 a taxpayer needed $1.5 million in taxable income to face a 15 percent rate. By 1917 a taxpayer with only $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and the individual with $1.5 million faced a tax rate of 67 percent.
There is a fascinating article on the history of taxes in the United States at US Treasury Tax History It shows that Americans have always taxed the crap out of the rich, and that is as it should be.
What this cartoon FALSELY represents however, is the small group of people who are crying "socialism!" at the thought of raising taxes. That's a fallacious argument that improperly addresses the concerns of those little fearmongering Conservatives. We're not worried about paying taxes. We're worried about this administration promising more than we can afford. We're worried about individual liberties being suborned by the federal government. We're crying foul as a Statist like Barack Obama sees the success of the individual based upon the success of the community.
Once again, Brian trots out his GOP apologetics. Plenty of conservatives go around babbling about socialism without actually understand what they are talking about. I presume you aren't one of those fools. But for whom are you speaking? All conservatives? Or the ones who realise that Obama is in fact not a socialist?
Whichever group you're representing I hope it isn't in any way affiliate with the GOP who spent the past decade or so growing the fed. govt. and making it even more dangerous and inefficient. Thanks, Brian, but I'll vote left of centre.
Anonymous, to be frank, I represent just one person...me. I am very aware of how socialism is defined, as well as how it has worked for many nations across the world. Also, please do not add me to the group of "[conservatives]...who realize that Obama is in fact not a socialist." Because I DO believe that he is a socialist. Why? Because he said so. In 2008 Barack Obama told the graduating class of Wesleyan University "[O}our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." That statement, along with others like the highly publicized comment to "Joe the Plumber" don't mince words. They proclaim outright Barack Obama's goals to slowly erode individualism in order to strengthen the whole. That is EXACTLY what socialism is. At least President Obama is honest about it.
Lastly, I am NOT affiliated with the GOP, though I have voted for them in the past few elections. My dissatisfaction with the Republican Party stems from the very fact that we sent them to Washington to be fiscally, socially, and economically conservative, and they became Democrats, in effect STATISTS, individuals who promote the state more than individual liberty.
In a perfect world, utopia could be achieved in mass, where each person would work hard, take according to their needs, and live a life of peace and prosperity. But I believe, quite sincerely, that human nature prevents this ideal, and that forcing "utopia", in mass, upon the human spirit stifles creativity, quality, and advancement. Should you need examples of this, look no farther than Russia.
So what do you propose? Obviously you lean a little to the left. Are you saying that you support the dominance of the State over that of the individual? Do your elected representatives and whatever current czar the President has appointed have your permission to make decisions for you, ones that the United States Constitution gives them no RIGHT too? Health? How much house you can afford? What cars you are allowed to drive? Whether or not you are allowed to own a gun? How many children can you have? Is this medicine cost prohibitive compared to your age? The list goes on.
I applaud Barack Obama's personal vision, for us to help those in need, but I recognize the terrible price it comes at, as did thousands of other Conservatives at Tea Parties across the country yesterday. It will cost us trillions of dollars. It will cost us productivity. And worst of all, it will cost us liberty.
"I DO believe that he is a socialist. Why? Because he said so..."[O]ur individual salvation depends on collective salvation."
Reminds me of another SOCIALIST in American history, who said - at the Continental Congress - "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Good ole Ben fortunately was talking about rebellion, rather than socio-economic policy. If you're going to quote the founding fathers, at least try not to take it out of context.
Oh...and one other thing. Franklin predated socialistic theory by quite a bit. There is a fantastic article at http://billscomments.blogspot.com/2004/08/ben-franklin-socialist.html that talks about it.
Excellent response, Brian. Mr. Anonymous didn't address your valid response to the graph, instead trotting out a worn-out 'GOP -vs- liberal' statement.
As Brian points out so well, the republicans in Washington aren't much different from the democrats, at least economically, and BOTH favor bigger government, and more spending.
...and fortunately for everyone, danny, Stan isn't afraid of hearing ideas which differ from his own (unlike you, apparently) That's one of the reasons I enjoy his blog so much, even when I disagree with him. I know his method of argument doesn't involve sticking his fingers in his ears. Perhaps you could learn something from him.
The difference, Lisabeth, is "the other guy" you mention was talking about voluntarily giving all you have to those in need, not someone else taking it from you. It's an important distinction.
IN FACT: the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, “liberal” or “very liberal” respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.
If those of you who believe in That Guy actually did sell all you have and give the $ to the poor (VOLUNTARILY), then you wouldn't need to stage protests about taxes because it wouldn't apply.
And your Gallup statistics just show the fact that Conservatives and Uberconservatives are well-off rich and upper class and use their charity contributions as tax write-offs, while Liberals and Veryliberals tend to be poorer and can't give. But if you check who are the blood donors or giving time to charities instead of $$$ you will see the liberals on top.
lol. Many liberals usually love to paint the conservative base as rednecks and trailer trash, but suddenly you have decided they are all rich? ...especially a full 40% of the population?
But still, you haven't addressed the point: there is a difference between giving your money to those who need it, and having it taken away involuntarily and distributed to those the government thinks need it (like banks?)
I think a simple comparison between Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin's charitable contribution habits would be appropriate here. Here is a USA Today article on the subject.
I think Lisabeth would find it fascinating reading, though I suppose we should establish what the median income for a "VeryLiberal" is. Perhaps Joe Biden counts. Let's see. The Bidens made $319,853 last year and gave about a grand away. I guess that qualifies as VeryLiberal. President Obama must only be KindaLiberal since the Obamas gave $240,000 last year. Of course, Barack made WAY more money that ole' Joe the Vice President.
"Because I DO believe that he is a socialist. Why? Because he said so. In 2008 Barack Obama told the graduating class of Wesleyan University "[O}our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." That statement, along with others like the highly publicized comment to "Joe the Plumber" don't mince words. "
I, too, believe that a success of a person is greatly dependent on the environment that they are in and surrounded by- yet I'm not a socialist. I'm just a person who uses common sense.
Unless Obama has outright stated, "I am a socialist," do not claim as such, especially with weak evidence like that.
Marty, I can see your point. I suppose many Americans would have to have Barack Obama stand in front of the White House and declare on national television, "Yes. I am a socialist" in order to believe it.
But of course, the emperor and the people needed someone to tell them he was naked too.
Sometimes...actually, most of the time, things aren't spelled out the way we would like them. It takes intellectual courage, perseverance, and honesty to look at the circumstantial evidence, too "read between the lines".
In the end, its how each of us interpret that evidence. I say that Barack Obama is a socialist. Truth is all about perspective. You say he isn't. Perhaps I'm reading too much in his actions and his words. Perhaps you aren't reading enough.
In the end, we will know, as history's vision sharpens with age. To be honest, I hope that YOU are correct, and that President Obama is NOT a socialist. Because if I'm correct, than I'm not sure we will have the freedoms we enjoy now.
The artist here didn't quite go back far enough in history, failing to show that prior to Hoover taxes were just as fascinating. In 1916 a taxpayer needed $1.5 million in taxable income to face a 15 percent rate. By 1917 a taxpayer with only $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and the individual with $1.5 million faced a tax rate of 67 percent.
ReplyDeleteThere is a fascinating article on the history of taxes in the United States at US Treasury Tax History It shows that Americans have always taxed the crap out of the rich, and that is as it should be.
What this cartoon FALSELY represents however, is the small group of people who are crying "socialism!" at the thought of raising taxes. That's a fallacious argument that improperly addresses the concerns of those little fearmongering Conservatives. We're not worried about paying taxes. We're worried about this administration promising more than we can afford. We're worried about individual liberties being suborned by the federal government. We're crying foul as a Statist like Barack Obama sees the success of the individual based upon the success of the community.
Once again, Brian trots out his GOP apologetics. Plenty of conservatives go around babbling about socialism without actually understand what they are talking about. I presume you aren't one of those fools. But for whom are you speaking? All conservatives? Or the ones who realise that Obama is in fact not a socialist?
ReplyDeleteWhichever group you're representing I hope it isn't in any way affiliate with the GOP who spent the past decade or so growing the fed. govt. and making it even more dangerous and inefficient. Thanks, Brian, but I'll vote left of centre.
Anonymous, to be frank, I represent just one person...me. I am very aware of how socialism is defined, as well as how it has worked for many nations across the world. Also, please do not add me to the group of "[conservatives]...who realize that Obama is in fact not a socialist." Because I DO believe that he is a socialist. Why? Because he said so. In 2008 Barack Obama told the graduating class of Wesleyan University "[O}our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." That statement, along with others like the highly publicized comment to "Joe the Plumber" don't mince words. They proclaim outright Barack Obama's goals to slowly erode individualism in order to strengthen the whole. That is EXACTLY what socialism is. At least President Obama is honest about it.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I am NOT affiliated with the GOP, though I have voted for them in the past few elections. My dissatisfaction with the Republican Party stems from the very fact that we sent them to Washington to be fiscally, socially, and economically conservative, and they became Democrats, in effect STATISTS, individuals who promote the state more than individual liberty.
In a perfect world, utopia could be achieved in mass, where each person would work hard, take according to their needs, and live a life of peace and prosperity. But I believe, quite sincerely, that human nature prevents this ideal, and that forcing "utopia", in mass, upon the human spirit stifles creativity, quality, and advancement. Should you need examples of this, look no farther than Russia.
So what do you propose? Obviously you lean a little to the left. Are you saying that you support the dominance of the State over that of the individual? Do your elected representatives and whatever current czar the President has appointed have your permission to make decisions for you, ones that the United States Constitution gives them no RIGHT too? Health? How much house you can afford? What cars you are allowed to drive? Whether or not you are allowed to own a gun? How many children can you have? Is this medicine cost prohibitive compared to your age? The list goes on.
I applaud Barack Obama's personal vision, for us to help those in need, but I recognize the terrible price it comes at, as did thousands of other Conservatives at Tea Parties across the country yesterday. It will cost us trillions of dollars. It will cost us productivity. And worst of all, it will cost us liberty.
"I DO believe that he is a socialist. Why? Because he said so..."[O]ur individual salvation depends on collective salvation."
ReplyDeleteReminds me of another SOCIALIST in American history, who said - at the Continental Congress - "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Good ole Ben fortunately was talking about rebellion, rather than socio-economic policy. If you're going to quote the founding fathers, at least try not to take it out of context.
ReplyDeleteCute application though.
Oh...and one other thing. Franklin predated socialistic theory by quite a bit. There is a fantastic article at http://billscomments.blogspot.com/2004/08/ben-franklin-socialist.html
ReplyDeletethat talks about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExcellent response, Brian. Mr. Anonymous didn't address your valid response to the graph, instead trotting out a worn-out 'GOP -vs- liberal' statement.
ReplyDeleteAs Brian points out so well, the republicans in Washington aren't much different from the democrats, at least economically, and BOTH favor bigger government, and more spending.
...and fortunately for everyone, danny, Stan isn't afraid of hearing ideas which differ from his own (unlike you, apparently) That's one of the reasons I enjoy his blog so much, even when I disagree with him. I know his method of argument doesn't involve sticking his fingers in his ears. Perhaps you could learn something from him.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere was another guy - his name escapes me at the moment - who said "Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor."
ReplyDeleteAnother one of those dammed socialists.
The difference, Lisabeth, is "the other guy" you mention was talking about voluntarily giving all you have to those in need, not someone else taking it from you. It's an important distinction.
ReplyDeleteIN FACT: the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, “liberal” or “very liberal” respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.
Conservatives do follow the advice of "that guy"
If those of you who believe in That Guy actually did sell all you have and give the $ to the poor (VOLUNTARILY), then you wouldn't need to stage protests about taxes because it wouldn't apply.
ReplyDeleteAnd your Gallup statistics just show the fact that Conservatives and Uberconservatives are well-off rich and upper class and use their charity contributions as tax write-offs, while Liberals and Veryliberals tend to be poorer and can't give. But if you check who are the blood donors or giving time to charities instead of $$$ you will see the liberals on top.
lol. Many liberals usually love to paint the conservative base as rednecks and trailer trash, but suddenly you have decided they are all rich? ...especially a full 40% of the population?
ReplyDeleteBut still, you haven't addressed the point: there is a difference between giving your money to those who need it, and having it taken away involuntarily and distributed to those the government thinks need it (like banks?)
I think a simple comparison between Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin's charitable contribution habits would be appropriate here. Here is a USA Today article on the subject.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm
I think Lisabeth would find it fascinating reading, though I suppose we should establish what the median income for a "VeryLiberal" is. Perhaps Joe Biden counts. Let's see. The Bidens made $319,853 last year and gave about a grand away. I guess that qualifies as VeryLiberal. President Obama must only be KindaLiberal since the Obamas gave $240,000 last year. Of course, Barack made WAY more money that ole' Joe the Vice President.
"Because I DO believe that he is a socialist. Why? Because he said so. In 2008 Barack Obama told the graduating class of Wesleyan University "[O}our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." That statement, along with others like the highly publicized comment to "Joe the Plumber" don't mince words. "
ReplyDeleteI, too, believe that a success of a person is greatly dependent on the environment that they are in and surrounded by- yet I'm not a socialist. I'm just a person who uses common sense.
Unless Obama has outright stated, "I am a socialist," do not claim as such, especially with weak evidence like that.
Marty, I can see your point. I suppose many Americans would have to have Barack Obama stand in front of the White House and declare on national television, "Yes. I am a socialist" in order to believe it.
ReplyDeleteBut of course, the emperor and the people needed someone to tell them he was naked too.
Sometimes...actually, most of the time, things aren't spelled out the way we would like them. It takes intellectual courage, perseverance, and honesty to look at the circumstantial evidence, too "read between the lines".
In the end, its how each of us interpret that evidence. I say that Barack Obama is a socialist. Truth is all about perspective. You say he isn't. Perhaps I'm reading too much in his actions and his words. Perhaps you aren't reading enough.
In the end, we will know, as history's vision sharpens with age. To be honest, I hope that YOU are correct, and that President Obama is NOT a socialist. Because if I'm correct, than I'm not sure we will have the freedoms we enjoy now.
lol @ Brian & his conservative buddies. Nice one, guys, but we can't believe even a GOP-lovin right-winger would really agree with that nonsense.
ReplyDelete