Full Context:
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more ...
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”Let's break it down.
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…
I smell fuzzy math and smokes and mirrors, but let's just take him at his word on this, even though we know it's complete bullshit. We don't even have a budget to cut (what are we, up to 1,150 days without one?)
We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more … See the chart to the right.
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.
and there's nothing stopping them. They can, as was the way before the advent of Big Government, start their own foundations, or ... they can simply give to Big Government. Write a check. Simple as that.
-look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
In other words, you didn't get there because you're smart. We're all smart. You didn't get there because you worked hard. We all work hard. (how did they get there and I didn't, then, exactly?) And since infrastructure that everybody pays at least a little bit for probably assisted in making you successful, we The Collective lay claim to some of your profits. Note that they will never say how much of your profits they are entitled to. But of course, look at the chart above. They're already paying the bulk of the taxes. How much more do we expect? Give us a number! They won't. Because it will never be enough to cover what they want tomorrow. In addition, a point I've made over and over, they also provide the revenue streams that provide the jobs that pay us to pay our taxes and build infrastructure. No businesses, no revenue, no jobs, no taxes, no infrastructure. No roads.
The government built the roads? I've got news for you, Barack. By your own self-defeating argument -- you didn't build those!
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
More of the same. Since you had help, we can demand whatever portion of your profits we see fit. Collectivism.
His "out of context" schtick might apply to this bit:
Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
If you focus on those two sentences alone, and included the stuttering pause after "business", yes, he could very well be talking specifically about the roads. I do note that he said "that" instead of "those", which, in the larger context is probably revealing as to the fact that he meant it exactly the way it came out. When you look at the WHOLE context, he reveals his collectivist mindset, which is, in fact, still "you didn't build that", 'we' did, and 'we' are entitled to your profit". It's clear as day to anybody with eyes and ears.
The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Uhhhhh ... sure. The government "invented" the internet, and built it out so that businesses could succeed. Riiiight. Only, not so much.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together
and therefore We the Collective are entitled to your profits.
There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
And we pay for those, again, through our taxes, and the business owners pay for those through their taxes, which they pay more of, and they also pay us the money that we use to pay our taxes. So .... your point is .... you want more, basically.
That’s how we funded the GI Bill.
Which is a separate argument.
That’s how we created the middle class.
The hell you did.
That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.
Again ... separate argument. If Californians wanted a bridge over the bay badly enough, they would have paid for it. And it's not like power companies can't build hydroelectric dams without the government funding them.
We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”
Oh. And here I thought it was to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of your ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States so that We the People can have the liberty to succeed or fail in a myriad of voluntary ways.
Silly me.
The fact of the matter is we on this side of the political aisle are fully aware that we do things together. But not because the government tells us to. We created a limited government primarily to protect our life, liberty, and property. The rest is up to us.
11 comments:
philmon: See the chart to the right.
The chart doesn't really tell us much unless you know the distribution of income. Nor does it include the entire federal tax burden, which also includes payroll, excise and corporate taxes.
This chart includes all these federal taxes, but also income tax credits and transfer payments such as Social Security and Medicare.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ShareBeforeTax.jpg
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43373-06-11-HouseholdIncomeandFedTaxes.pdf
philmon: they can simply give to Big Government.
Sure they can, but they are advocating returning tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to Clinton-era levels.
philmon: Give us a number! They won't.
Just did. It's also in the newspapers.
philmon: The government built the roads?
The Eisenhower Administration made the interstate highway system a goal of the federal government. It required the involvement of many sectors of the economy, federal, state, corporate, workers, taxpayers, etc.
philmon: Since you had help, we can demand whatever portion of your profits we see fit. Collectivism.
Well, no. Pointing out that government involvement is important to America's success is not the same as collectivism.
philmon: The government "invented" the internet, and built it out so that businesses could succeed. Riiiight.
While no single entity can be said to have invented the Internet, government involvement was important to its early development.
philmon: And we pay for those, again, through our taxes, and the business owners pay for those through their taxes, which they pay more of, and they also pay us the money that we use to pay our taxes.
Now you got it!
philmon: "That’s how we funded the GI Bill." Which is a separate argument.
No, it's the very point he's making. Democratic governance has had a crucial role in America's success.
I don't know if you're intentionally missing the point entirely, or if you just don't get it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
No business, no payroll, no wealth to tax, no government, no roads.
Number,eh? 28%? It was in the papers, you say. The question is, how much is fair? A firm number we can all agree to stick to henceforth.
My point is that's what you're asking for today. But tomorrow you'll be back for 33%. And when you get that, 35%. And so on.
It doesn't matter to you that the rich not only pay the bulk of the taxes, but provide the wealth for the rest of us to be taxed upon -- you. want. more. It's not about paying for the essential, enumerated roles of government, it's about paying for what you want either for your own goodie bag or to make yourself feel good about using the government to further your vision of how people should live -- which is outside of its scope.
When it becomes not about funding the government but about "fairness" (always used as a ploy to extract more money from the private sector, never less) ... it's about more, more, more. Every. Single. Time. No, I don't think you guys are stupid enough to ask for too big a chunk at a time. I read Alinsky. I know the game.
Obama was not "merely pointing out" that government involvement is essential to America's success. As we've pointed out, the Government is already involved. Heavily involved. He wants it to be involved more, and he wants the money to do it, and he wants you to vote to take more of it from "those" people. Because "we're all in this together".
I find it fascinating that you guys look at a guy who was raised by Marxists, sought out Marxists, joined Marxist organizations, and whose rhetoric is Marxist can't, in public (I'm sure you do it in private) just say, "yeah, so he's a Marxist. So?" That would be honest, at least.
There really is no point in arguing with you, though, other than to have it out there that there are other arguments than yours. Yours aren't even coherent, they jump all over the place. I'm satisfied that mine against yours will stand firm in the eyes of anyone who cares to try to understand them.
And as such, I will literally waste no further time with you on this one.
philmon: No business, no payroll, no wealth to tax, no government, no roads.
That is correct. Also, no government, no stable environment for business.
philmon: Number,eh?
The Bush highest marginal tax rate is 35%. The Clinton highest marginal tax rate was 39.6%. The tier is proposed at $250,000, which means someone making $250,000 would have no tax increase. Someone making $300,000 would pay an additional $2300. That's assuming ordinary income.
philmon: My point is that's what you're asking for today. But tomorrow you'll be back for 33%. And when you get that, 35%.
Clinton-era tax rates occurred during a long economic expansion, increased middle class prosperity, and resulted in structural cash surpluses.
philmon: It doesn't matter to you that the rich not only pay the bulk of the taxes,
They also have a bulk of the income. We provide the data above.
sigh... against my better judgement...
We agree that government provides a stable environment for business (rule of law), though changes in the rules it imposes does cause both short-term instability and long-term economic and social consequences which are often counterproductive even to the original intent of the rules.
I really don't care what the tax rates under Bush or Clinton was. I'm talking about tax rates right now, and whether or not they're "fair". What they were at any particular time in the past has no bearing on their fairness. Plus, your "answer" doesn't address at all what you posted it as an answer to. You will ask for more. And if you get it, you will ask for more later. And again. And again. Because you apparently, like the rest of the progressives, think that government is here to fiddle with the economy and redistribute wealth. You guys hide behind infrastructure and use "roads and bridges", but by infrastructure you mean far more than that. You mean government forced wealth redistribution. To you, that is part of the infrastructure.
philmon: It doesn't matter to you that the rich not only pay the bulk of the taxes,
They also have a bulk of the income. We provide the data above.
Yes, and they also pay higher rates on that higher income. You guys act like it isn't so, that they don't pay as high a percentage on their income as the rest of us, but -- right from the document you linked:
"On average, households in the second quintile also received more in refundable credits than they paid in individual income taxes. The average income tax rate was 1.3 percent for the middle quintile, 4.6 percent for the fourth quintile, and 13.4 percent for the highest quintile. The top 1 percent, on average, paid 21.0 percent of their income in individual income taxes."
If the rich weren't already paying a higher percentage, you'd be making that argument directly, because you'd be stupid not to. (I know, you tried, and failed, within the extremely narrow context of the Buffett rule.)
So my argument remains. We already have a progressive tax system. You guys will keep re-defining "fair" as long as you can get people on the lower end of the income scale to vote to take higher and higher percentages of the higher end's income simply because they have it and you want it. (And it gets easier and easier to do as you put more and more people on the government dole.) At your core, them having "more" is inherently unfair. It is a result of the difference in our worldviews, where mine still retains the concept of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours" and yours is "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable".
You're collectivists at heart, semantics aside. "We're not collectivists, all we're saying is [insert limited incremental argument for collectivism here]". Then tomorrow you move the goalposts and repeat. I'm on to it, and I'm trying to make sure more other people are on to it as well.
philmon: We agree that government provides a stable environment for business (rule of law), though changes in the rules it imposes does cause both short-term instability and long-term economic and social consequences which are often counterproductive even to the original intent of the rules.
Agreed.
philmon: You mean government forced wealth redistribution. To you, that is part of the infrastructure.
It's not infrastructure specifically, but certainly part of the social contract, for instance, Social Security is a wealth transfer from young to old.
philmon: Yes, and they also pay higher rates on that higher income.
Somewhat, and even then, not always.
philmon: The average income tax rate was ...
You ignored other taxes again. Not sure why you keep doing that.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ShareBeforeTax.jpg
philmon: We already have a progressive tax system.
Somewhat, and even then, not always.
philmon: You're collectivists at heart ...
collectivism, a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution.
Nope.
"It's not infrastructure specifically, but certainly part of the social contract, for instance, Social Security is a wealth transfer from young to old."
"Social contract" is a term invented by progressives out of whole cloth.
Show me this "Social Contract". From whence did it come? Does it have my signature on it? Because I think somebody forged it if it does.
Contracts are voluntary agreements.
Yes, and they also pay higher rates on that higher income.
Somewhat, and even then, not always.
In other words, "yeah you're right, but not enough, in my opinion." Which is the point I am making. "Fair" is what you say it is today.
Social Security as described by you is a welfare program.
Social Security was not sold as a welfare program, or it would never have passed. However, because the government, especially progressives in the government, are always scouring, mining for additional revenue raided it long ago, it is, in fact, the pyramid scheme you identify it as.
And we no longer have a rapidly expanding base of young people to feed into it. Hence, the monster the government should never have created has eaten itself and is now eating up a good chunk of the federal budget. A bad idea, poorly managed, and vastly more expensive than what it was sold as ... as just about every government program there ever was. Not to mention that large pools of money breed corruption.
And then there's Medicare, which is even worse. We've got $120 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, half of which is Medicare.
But this isn't even on topic. You bring it up because you believe that these things make America better, because you can see grandma getting the check, and you don't see the unseen consequences. Actually you do see some of them but you don't make the connection. You just see it as another problem the government needs to solve by getting involved in it, further subsidizing bad behavior.
You get more of what you subsidize.
If you subsidize reckless spending, you get more reckless spending. If you subsidize non-saving, you get less savings. If you subsidize poverty, guess what?
You get more of it.
Our problem isn't government food (revenue), it's government appetite. As a matter of fact, we're so far in the hole, we could confiscate all of the wealth of the fortune 500 and all of the billionaires and professional sports franchises and Hollywood and pull every troop from the middle east and it still wouldn't pay the bills for a year. And that wouldn't touch the deficit ... it would, in fact, grow.
collectivism, a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution.
No, that's socialism, which is a particular strain of collectivism. And it all uses the same Marxist clap-trap to justify itself.
Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an "in-group", in what specific context it is defined). Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation. It is used and has been used as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history.
If you nod in approval with Obama's speech ... yup.
philmon: "Social contract" is a term invented by progressives out of whole cloth.
The Social Contract was a concept of the Enlightenment and forms the foundation of the Declaration of Independence.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html/
philmon: In other words, "yeah you're right, but not enough, in my opinion." Which is the point I am making. "Fair" is what you say it is today.
We provided data on progressivity, which you have ignored. The income tax is progressive, but the payroll tax is regressive. If you include social insurance transfers, then the overall system is somewhat progressive.
philmon: Social Security as described by you is a welfare program.
Generally, we think of welfare programs as based on need. Social Security is primarily an income transfer from workers to the elderly. It also includes disability insurance provisions.
philmon: Hence, the monster the government should never have created has eaten itself and is now eating up a good chunk of the federal budget.
Actually, payroll taxes have been running surpluses for years. This was used to partially offset the Bush tax cuts. Hard to believe the U.S. was running structural cash surpluses not much more than a decade ago.
philmon: We've got $120 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, half of which is Medicare.
Funding Medicare/Medicaid is a significant issue going forward, but is well within the means of the U.S.
philmon: No, that's socialism, which is a particular strain of collectivism.
We quoted the primary dictionary definition. There is a secondary meaning.
philmon: Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being.
No man is an island.
Your definition says it's a matter of emphasis, with interdependence contrasted to individualism. In the real world, they each have a place. "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
Odd that someone who claims not to be a collectivist repeatedly refers to himself as "We". Just an observation.
I've read the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. Didn't see anything in there about government managed retirement plans, or anything remotely pointing to them. I'm pretty sure that you are referring Locke here, but your arguments are much more in the vein of Rousseau. Let's see ... Life ... yeah .... liberty, mmmmhmmm ... persuit of happiness (a term clearly used in leiu of "property" if you go back and read Locke) Nope, nothing about a duty to provide health care to people I have never and will never meet.
"We provided data on progressivity, which you have ignored. The income tax is progressive, but the payroll tax is regressive. If you include social insurance transfers, then the overall system is somewhat progressive."
I haven't ignored it. It just means something different to me.
What does OASI stand for? That last letter there. What does it stand for?
Insurance
People who don't need insurance don't need to buy it. Oh, wait ... apparently they now do.
Because I have more respect that third term in "The Social Contract", property than you do.
Because that's what this is all about. "You didn't build that" is an argument to justify taking more of someone's stuff based on this argument that it isn't really theirs to begin with.
Look, nobody here is saying we don't need government or we don't need taxes. At least nobody on this blog. This is why I don't hang out with the Capital "L" Libertarians in real life.
Your "social contract" justifies anything you think ought to be done, and it's proponents are constantly in search of ways to expand the pool of money it gets to use to do what it wants.
Case and point:
"Actually, payroll taxes have been running surpluses for years. This was used to partially offset the Bush tax cuts."
That's AWESOME news!!!! This means we're taking in more than we need to meet the obligations we have to the people paying into the system, right?
Uh, no. It doesn't. Most people think that the money they pay into Social Security is going into some sort of fund where it accumulates and is managed wisely and conservatively by the Social Security Administration so that we draw on it and its accumulated dividends over our lifetimes, and like insurance there is some risk spreading allowed governed by some actuarial properties of life expectancies.
But that's not the way it works at all. When you say "payroll taxes have been running surpluses" ... all that means is we're taking in per anum more than we're spending per anum. And what happens to that "surplus"?
The general fund scoops it up and leaves an IOU in the account. In other words, it's spent on other shit. Oh, sure, SS has a legal "right" to redeem those IOU's when it needs them ... but where does that money come from? We borrow it! Debt. Congratulations, America, you've invested in debt for your retirement insurance. But it's cool, because it's backed by the "full faith and credit" of the United States of America. In other words, don't worry, we'll take the money from someone else.
Yup, that's one of the many problems with government programs like Social Security. It creates a large pool of money for politicians to raid to buy votes from their constituents. The New Social Contract. You vote for me, I get other people's money to pay for shit for you! Ain't I great?! Vote for me again!
Giant pools of money are like giant pools of stagnant water where parasites come to breed.
Many, if not most politicians we send to Congress actually think it's their job to go to Washington and get more money from giant Federal slush funds than their constituents pay into it.
We are and we aren't in this "together". Ideally, we get to choose who we are in this together with. Associations should be voluntary. The more centralized "we" gets, the less personal the relationships, the bigger the system is to be gamed, the more people can game it. The scope goes self/family/community/municipality/state/federal, from local to global. Charity should be as local as possible. Otherwise the emphasis of "The Social Contract" becomes "Everybody owes me" rather than "I owe my fellow man". The emphasis makes all the difference in the world in the mind of the individual.
Forced charity isn't charity. When you take from some to give to others, that's not charity, especially not on your part. Because, you know what?
You didn't build that.
philmon: Didn't see anything in there about government managed retirement plans, or anything remotely pointing to them.
No, that's up to the legislature. The first individual insurance mandate was passed in 1798.
philmon: Let's see ... Life ... yeah .... liberty, mmmmhmmm ... persuit of happiness (a term clearly used in leiu of "property" if you go back and read Locke)
You said the social contract was invented by progressives, when it actually has deep roots in the Enlightenment and forms the basis of the Declaration of Independence.
philmon: Your "social contract" justifies anything you think ought to be done, and it's proponents are constantly in search of ways to expand the pool of money it gets to use to do what it wants.
No. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence made the argument that King George had violated the social contract, even though the King had never signed anything or believed he was bound by such a contract.
philmon: This means we're taking in more than we need to meet the obligations we have to the people paying into the system, right?
That was true at the end of the Clinton Administration, but America chose a different tack in 2000. Something about Al Gore being fat or something.
philmon: When you say "payroll taxes have been running surpluses" ... all that means is we're taking in per anum more than we're spending per anum. And what happens to that "surplus"?
At the end of the Clinton Administration, it was being used to pay down the publicly held debt. Gore wanted to continue this policy, which would have tempered the overheated economic expansion and left the U.S. in a much better financial position to weather any financial shocks. Bush wanted return to surpluses in income tax cuts. Gore got more votes. Go USA!
Post a Comment