Darrell Issa calls the kettle black
Republican Darrell Issa, about to become chair of the House Oversight Committee with the ability to wield endless subpoenaes, effectively called the Obama administration the most corrupt ever. As the saying goes I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Worse yet, though the interviewer did a bit better than usual in confronting Issa, he fails to ask for concrete examples of criminality to back up Issa's ridiculous hyperbole.
But to be fair, when it comes to corruption, he should know. Hell, Issa is a poster boy for corrupt politicians who get away with their crimes and fabrications.
Now he's getting ready to launch a raft of investigations on "'everything from WikiLeaks to Fannie Mae to corruption in Afghanistan' right off the bat-- as well as 'how regulation impacts job creation, the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the foreclosure crisis; recalls at the Food and Drug Administration and the failure of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to agree on the causes of the market meltdown.'"
In other words, he plans to spend millions and waste thousands of manhours on witch hunts to bolster the GOP's false rhetoric. Welcome to the GOP's definition of "governance."
On the bright side I guess the subpoena servers will be guaranteed employment for the next two years. However, ironically, it was Issa himself who set a precedent to ignore these subpoenas when he refused to honor one to testify in the Duke Cunningham corruption trial, stating the Office of General Counsel determined that compliance . . . is inconsistent with precedents and privileges of the House.
But to be fair, when it comes to corruption, he should know. Hell, Issa is a poster boy for corrupt politicians who get away with their crimes and fabrications.
Now he's getting ready to launch a raft of investigations on "'everything from WikiLeaks to Fannie Mae to corruption in Afghanistan' right off the bat-- as well as 'how regulation impacts job creation, the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the foreclosure crisis; recalls at the Food and Drug Administration and the failure of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to agree on the causes of the market meltdown.'"
In other words, he plans to spend millions and waste thousands of manhours on witch hunts to bolster the GOP's false rhetoric. Welcome to the GOP's definition of "governance."
On the bright side I guess the subpoena servers will be guaranteed employment for the next two years. However, ironically, it was Issa himself who set a precedent to ignore these subpoenas when he refused to honor one to testify in the Duke Cunningham corruption trial, stating the Office of General Counsel determined that compliance . . . is inconsistent with precedents and privileges of the House.
Labels: Republican corruption
posted by Libby Spencer at 2:04 PM
24 Comments:
Again that same response to Watergate. Nixon was accused of tyrannical ambitions, so before he did anything at all, Obama was a "tyrant." Republicans have long memories although not for facts, and of course the ability to lie with a straight face.
They still haven't gotten over it and they're still trying to argue "yeah, but you guys are just as bad or worse." After all, what else have they got to brag about since supply side economics fails each and every time. Ask one if he remembers what unemployment was under Reagan and what Reagan's popularity polls showed.
Reagan's was, in terms of indictments anyway, close to being the most corrupt administration and the Jury's not out on Dubyas - it'll probably never be convened in the first place, but again, what other tactic can they use to distract from an unblemished record of failure and steady erosion of liberty and steady growth of deficit spending and Federal power?
Libby Spencer "In other words, he plans to spend millions and waste thousands of manhours on witch hunts to bolster the GOP's false rhetoric. "
You are not concerned about the billions in losses at Freddie/Fannie while former government officials were receiving Wall St level bonuses?
No concern about the "shovel ready jobs" that largely didn't exist?
No support for Issa's goal to make the Fed more transparent?
No fraud in Medicare is there Ms Spencer?
Let the facts come out and the chips fall .
-- tdc
Capt Fogg "Ask one if he remembers what unemployment was under Reagan and what Reagan's popularity polls showed."
The UE rate was in the 10%+ range early in Reagan's first term. By the end of 1984 it was in the 7% range. By 1988 is was in the mid 5% range.
The question for the "progressives" is if they remember the inflation rates and interest rates under Carter.
-tdc
Are any of you Motowns capable of a serious discussion or are we gonna continue with the bogus categorical epithets?
The Reagan unemployment peaks were at 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) right on the heels of the '81 tax cuts. and of course we can't blame those on the largest economic disaster since 1929.
Remember that far back? Of course you do, and that's why you're giving me the lows and ignoring the highs. Unemployment is roughly the same at roughly the same point in both presidencies. We don't know what it will be in two or three or four years from now, so lets get real and stop the posturing. There's nothing new about these cyclical things and they always swing wilder in periods of low top brackets. Yes they do.
Again, unemployment was about the same as now. Debt took off like a rocket under Reagan, but we survived. The story until two years ago was that debt doesn't matter, remember? Some say unemployment improved after a while because Reagan had to raise taxes after all. Maybe, maybe not, but he wasn't called a tyrant for a 50% top bracket -- or a Communist or any of the rest of these irresponsible and hyperbolic things. Idiots weren't out in the street protesting a tax increase when they just got a cut. The public sanity level was higher.
Of course the predicted rise in government revenues didn't happen either, now did they? Reagan was what he was - some good, some bad, some ugly but nobody was comparing him to Mao or Stalin or Hitler or insisting he was born in Nairobi or murdered his grandmother.
Anyway, this high unemployment produced an approval rating of 35% and a disapproval rating of 56% so the question is why the hysteria about Obama. Obama's lowest approval rating is nearly twice as high as his predecessors, 41% Vs. 25% and only slightly lower than Eisenhower's, but we're told he's a dictator. Sorry, somethings wrong in River city and it ain't pool.
So do you want to talk about reality or do you want to mimic some of the other anonymites here and prance around twirling batons?
Seriously.
And why Carter? The great list of ineffectual presidents includes both parties, and Gerald Ford, whom I actually liked had only WIN buttons to offer as a solution to inflation. If you're interested, I tend to think of Eisenhower as one of the best of the last century and maybe the last good Republican to hold that office.
But the ball's in your court tdc. We can exchange ideas or sling childish insults.
And of course there's concern about the things you mention. Who said there wasn't and for my part I'm concerned that such things get swept away by the hysterical claims and the passion for impeachment even if it means inventing something to impeach Obama for.
Sure there's fraud in medicare, and in everything else. The question is whether we ignore how that happened so that we can continue the policies that allowed it. So far I see a one trick party with one shaky response to all problems: tax cuts for the top 1%.
We're paying a price for all this deregulation and government impotence. We can blame it on Carter and Reagan and Clinton and the Commander guy, and we'd be right, but is it Democrats insisting that we don't need safety standards for oil drilling or food because it's "communism?"
We can simply dispense with government or we can reform it. Guess which I think is more responsible? We can talk or we can resume the "liberals are all this and conservatives are all that" that's ruined this country almost beyond redemption.
Is that what you're here to do, or do you just want to sneer and carp and swagger and insult and act like God almighty speaks through your fingertips?
If you look at the accusations against Dems, you can read what crimes the wingers are about to commit. It's a simple rule, but consistently proves out.
I think the psychiatrists call that "reaction formation" but mendacity will do for the rest of us.
What Fogg said and Ruth you're right. That rule proves out nearly every single time.
Capt Fogg wrote in part "Are any of you Motowns capable of a serious discussion or are we gonna continue with the bogus categorical epithets?
OK Capt .lets look at your rebuttal. Due to size limitations of this forum, it will be split into several posts
-------
Capt Fogg "The Reagan unemployment peaks were at 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) right on the heels of the '81 tax cuts. and of course we can't blame those on the largest economic disaster since 1929."
From www.bls.gov, UE Monthly Data
Year,Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec,Annual,
1979,5.9,5.9,5.8,5.8,5.6,5.7,5.7,6.0,5.9,6.0,5.9,6.0,
1980,6.3,6.3,6.3,6.9,7.5,7.6,7.8,7.7,7.5,7.5,7.5,7.2,
1981,7.5,7.4,7.4,7.2,7.5,7.5,7.2,7.4,7.6,7.9,8.3,8.5,
1982,8.6,8.9,9.0,9.3,9.4,9.6,9.8,9.8,10.1,10.4,10.8,10.8,
1983,10.4,10.4,10.3,10.2,10.1,10.1,9.4,9.5,9.2,8.8,8.5,8.3,
1984,8.0,7.8,7.8,7.7,7.4,7.2,7.5,7.5,7.3,7.4,7.2,7.3,
1985,7.3,7.2,7.2,7.3,7.2,7.4,7.4,7.1,7.1,7.1,7.0,7.0,
1986,6.7,7.2,7.2,7.1,7.2,7.2,7.0,6.9,7.0,7.0,6.9,6.6,
1987,6.6,6.6,6.6,6.3,6.3,6.2,6.1,6.0,5.9,6.0,5.8,5.7,
1988,5.7,5.7,5.7,5.4,5.6,5.4,5.4,5.6,5.4,5.4,5.3,5.3,
1989,5.4,5.2,5.0,5.2,5.2,5.3,5.2,5.2,5.3,5.3,5.4,5.4,
My data was picking the months for the timeframes I acknowledged (both highs and the lows)
As far as the causes of the 1981 recession there were several, but primarily Volker's policy at Fed to curb the Money supply to attack the inflation from the Carter era
----------
Capt Fogg "Remember that far back? Of course you do, and that's why you're giving me the lows and ignoring the highs.
What part of my initial post when I stated "The UE rate was in the 10%+ range early in Reagan's first term." did you not understand?
Feel free to post your retraction and/or apology. Or are you going to follow the Libby Spencer MO?
----------
Capt Fogg "Unemployment is roughly the same at roughly the same point in both presidencies. "
The "solutions" to improving the economy are not close to the same. Fed policy is 180 degrees opposite, Keynesian style stimulus (primarily) compared to a more Monetarist approach. The economy itself is totally different. (decline of the manufacturing base) The UE rates are just a coincidence at this point
-tdc
Response - Part II
Capt Fogg "There's nothing new about these cyclical things and they always swing wilder in periods of low top brackets."
Government actions and policies influence the degree and severity of the economic swings.
---------
Capt Fogg "Debt took off like a rocket under Reagan, but we survived."
Deficit levels under Reagan never came close to current levels.
Deficit/GDP(%)
1980 2.65 a
1981 2.53 a
1982 3.93 a
1983 5.88 a
1984 4.72 a
1985 5.03 a
1986 4.96 a
1987 3.16 a
1988 3.04 a
1989 2.78 a
1990 3.81 a
1991 4.49 a
1992 4.58 a
1993 3.83 a
1994 2.87 a
1995 2.21 a
1996 1.37 a
1997 0.26 a
1998 -0.79 a
1999 -1.34 a
2000 -2.37 a
2001 -1.25 a
2002 1.48 a
2003 3.39 a
2004 3.48 a
2005 2.52 a
2006 1.85 a
2007 1.14 a
2008 3.18 a
2009 9.91 a
2010 10.64 b
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1980_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s
---------
Capt Fogg" The story until two years ago was that debt doesn't matter, remember?"
A few made that claim. Fiscal conservatives don't agree with it as a long term policy
I voted "not Bush" in 2004 for that very reason
------------
Response Part III
Capt Fogg Some say unemployment improved after a while because Reagan had to raise taxes after all. Maybe, maybe not,"
I'd be interested in reading a credible economist that believes raising taxes reduces unemployment.
One of Reagan's largest tax increases was to shore up SS in 1983.
If raising taxes reduces unemployment, then the recent debate should have raised rates on everyone.
---------
Capt Fogg "but he (Reagan)wasn't called a tyrant for a 50% top bracket -- or a Communist or any of the rest of these irresponsible and hyperbolic things.
When the top marginal rate was 70%+ under Carter, 50% looks pretty good.
In addition tax brackets and standard deductions were adjusted annually for inflation under Reagan.
----------
Capt Fogg "Of course the predicted rise in government revenues didn't happen either, now did they? "
You tell me Capt.
FY Revenues ($B)
1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.4
1985 734.0
1986 769.2
1987 854.3
1988 909.2
1989 991.1
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf
Looking at real (inflation adjusted) revenue
". An accurate accounting indicates that receipts increased from $599 billion in 1981 to $1.032 trillion in 1990, an increase of 72%. In 2005 dollars, the receipts decreased from $1.25 trillion in 1981 to $1.13 trillion in 1983 and did not return to $1.25 trillion until 1985. The receipts in 1990 were $1.5 trillion in 2005 dollars, an increase of only 20%.[39] In contrast, from 1991 to 2000, receipts increased by 90% in current dollars, or 60% in 2005 dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
----------
-tdc
Response - Part IV
Capt Fogg "Reagan was what he was - some good, some bad, some ugly but nobody was comparing him to Mao or Stalin or Hitler or insisting he was born in Nairobi or murdered his grandmother."
The Nation was told He only loved the rich, hated the poor, despised the working person, etc..
Partisan hyperbole is nothing new (imo)
---------
Capt Fogg "So do you want to talk about reality or do you want to mimic some of the other anonymites here and prance around twirling batons? Seriously."
I would invite you to participate in the Detroit News politics forum. The left/ "progressives" are not well represented there
--------
Capt Fogg "And why Carter? "
Easy..without Carters initiatives and failure, Reagan would have never been elected. Carter lead one of the most honest, yet ineffectual administrations since WWII. (again IMO)
---------
Capt Fogg "But the ball's in your court tdc.
Hope to see you in the Detroit News forum
-tdc
Capt Fogg "And of course there's concern about the things you mention. Who said there wasn't and for my part I'm concerned that such things get swept away by the hysterical claims and the passion for impeachment even if it means inventing something to impeach Obama for."
I'm not aware of Issa going after President Obama for Impeachment. However your fellow blogger claimed in part "In other words, he plans to spend millions and waste thousands of manhours on witch hunts to bolster the GOP's false rhetoric. Welcome to the GOP's definition of "governance."
The party in power generally protects its own. Doesn't matter if its 'dem or GOP
Having the opposition party review programs, policies and expenditures in not necessarily a bad thing. Politics will enter into it, but there is no way to avoid it
-tdc
Thanks for the invitation, but I really don't have the time or the inclination, much less the constitution to argue at the Detroit News. I'm far more used to being sought out for advice and money than to arguing with unknown people with hidden interests and credentials. From the little I've seen, it's a jungle and so far the current Detroit contingent belongs there, present company excepted.
Yeah, you did mention the 10%.. I missed that, sorry. You've posted a lot of stuff and I can't really address all of it, but about the debt, I would suggest looking up historical charts for debt vs GNP and see under which administration the debt leveled off and under which it declined and when it really began to skyrocket.
I don't think opposition to Reagan ever approached the viciousness of the current frenzy. I don't recall people calling him Pol Pot for addressing school children or insulting his wife - not even after the sale of WMD to Saddam, the Central American death squads and the Ollie North shenanigans.
I do remember the GOP conventions where we were told the real problem was pornography however - and family values, not the rising debt, not the S&L collapse. Billions and billions and billions lost due to corruption and lack of regulation. Big bailouts and hardly a word, so sure, I get a little cynical about today's outrage which sounds phony as hell to this old man.
I do remember Clinton's "season of subpoenas" and that very phrase is being spouted by one Republican bigwig after another, even if Issa hasn't used those very words.
Do you doubt deliberate obstructionism without concern for national interests exists when we've had 230 filibusters? When we hear endless sobbing about never forgetting 9/11 while refusing to help those who are dying because of it? Sure the Democrats aren't superheroes, but who is going to bring back some oversight - certainly not the GOP. Certainly not the people who think we shouldn't have safety standards and call it communism if the FDA tries to remove poisoned meat from the supermarket.
It's not just traditional party politics when we're told that Adam Smith's ideas about taxation are socialist, that Teddy Roosevelt is a communist, that Obama is all about "redistribution of wealth" I think it's insane and irresponsible and designed to destroy most of what I hold dear about my country and make it into a feudal corporatocracy. Sorry, but I do.
The GOP isn't just about economic policy by any account and of late and in my opinion, it's about power and getting more of it. It isn't about reducing the government, it's about massive expansion in size and power by any means possible. If I fault Obama, I fault him for what Bush began iwth warrantless wiretapping, warrantless access to our financial records, the GPS data from our cellphones, reading our e-mails and now making some of us carry passports in our own country.
Obama faced the most vicious smear campaign of my long lifetime before he even took a tour of the White House, never mind selling weapons to the Ayatollah or cutting and running in Beruit.
As I said, this is a new kind of madness, not just a new degree.
Posting increasing revenues is one thing, but without adjustment for inflation I think the increase wasn't really all there and I think that the historical graphs of top bracket rates vs debt are equally revealing.
Yes, I do remember the Eisenhower tax structure and somehow he paid down the debt and we prospered and since Reagan, it's increased steadily with the exception of the Clinton years after which the graph went vertical.
It puzzles me that Bush could, or at least Cheney could get away with saying debt doesn't matter, that cutting the top bracket would pay the debt when it didn't, create jobs when it didn't and the folks on the right told us it was near treason to object -- and yet today?
I'm sorry, I've been in that upper bracket by a long shot for a long time. I had a multi million dollar income in the middle of this last decade and no, that extra increment didn't go into creating jobs, it went into hedge funds, the market and real estate and contributed to the bubble. Sure, I bought a yacht, a big house, a sports car, but I didn't create jobs, I retired. An extra few thousand in my pocket? little if any of it is going to get spent and as you know that marginal propensity to consume gets vanishingly small when you're making five or ten milllion a year. To the average factory worker? He'll spend most of it or pay down his debts. What's unamerican or communist about wanting the vast bulk of us to put our kids through school, maintain our houses and live a little better, maybe buy a car now and then? I feel that Republicans disagree with me here and Democrats don't and in large part that's why I'm not a Republican any more.
As most of my friends and associates were in the same boat and are still in the same yacht club, I can say with confidence that their experience mirrors mine. If they took on new employees in the Bush years, they were in Mumbai. We got no new private sector jobs in 8 years of the lowest taxes in my lifetime so how is that evidence that the theory holds water?
So thanks for staying away from the name calling and insults, I appreciate it, but from personal experience I'm still convinced that supply side economics doesn't work and 35% upper brackets do nothing to create jobs and do a lot to widen the gap, reduce opportunity for most of us and lead to bubbles.
But hey, this is our country, not a global corporate colony and these battles we're fighting seem to be a distraction created by people who don't want it to be our country and we've got to find a way to see each others concerns.
Capt Fogg wrote in part "I do remember Clinton's "season of subpoenas" and that very phrase is being spouted by one Republican bigwig after another, even if Issa hasn't used those very words."
I recall some on the 'dem side wanting impeachment hearings in 2007.
There are fringe elements in both party's. Nothing new.
---------
Capt Fogg "Do you doubt deliberate obstructionism without concern for national interests exists when we've had 230 filibusters?"
I ok until you added "without concern for the Nation interests" line. That's where we differ.
The GOP followed / increased the process the minority 'dems followed in the 2003-2006 timeframe. The 'dems were filibustering to the point that the GOP threatened ammend the rules to prevent its abuse
The 'dems ( + 2 I's) had a filibuster proof majority for about 1 year. They didn't even bother with the facade of "bi partisanship. Even after Browns election, all the 'dems had to do was compromise enough to get the "Moderates" (ie Snowe, Collins, etc..) to agree.
When the legislation is so extreme that the "moderates" wont sign on, the problem is with the majority legislation.
Now that the 'dems have been on the receiving end of filibuster (use/abuse) they want to change the rules
-----------
Capt Fogg " When we hear endless sobbing about never forgetting 9/11 while refusing to help those who are dying because of it?"
I thought the funding was finally passed? As far as timing, perhaps the 'dems should have done their job and passed a budget *before* the election instead of playing politics?
---------
Capt Fogg? Sure the Democrats aren't superheroes, but who is going to bring back some oversight - certainly not the GOP."
I disagree. Freddie/Fannie are going to get a thorough review. The Fed will probably also have to answer some tough questions. Thats a good place to start (imo)
-tdc
Capt Fogg "Obama faced the most vicious smear campaign of my long lifetime before he even took a tour of the White House, never mind selling weapons to the Ayatollah or cutting and running in Beruit."
Forget the post 2000 election hyperbole already?
Florida was a mess, but your side went ballistic in its hyperbole. (imo)
Capt Fogg "As I said, this is a new kind of madness, not just a new degree."
It didn't begin in 2008, and it doesn't just reside on one side of the aisle
--------
Capt Fogg "Posting increasing revenues is one thing, but without adjustment for inflation I think the increase wasn't really all there"
I provided both actual and inflation adjusted data. one in charts, the other in verbage
----------
Capt Fogg "and I think that the historical graphs of top bracket rates vs debt are equally revealing."
Debt/deficits consist of the gap between revenue and spending. Looking only a *part* of the revenue source reveals nothing of significance.
Since I took the time to dig up data for my initial rebuttal, go ahead and research the show the inflation adjusted revenue and spending from 1980 - current. We can continue this discussion if you are so inclined
Sorry you will not be joining us at the Det News.
-tdc
Look, I don't have 5 hours a day to address the data dump. I'm not ignorant or uninformed or inexperienced and I've had many decades of involvement in Republican politics and profitable experience in the international monetary and financial world. We all know how easy it is to make a case that really isn't a case or cast doubt on a valid hypothesis. I started out as a salesman, after all.
As to the degree of hyperbole - again, I'm not a child, I'm an old man and have watched every campaign since Eisenhower/Stevenson in 1952 and since the 1990's it has been very much different. Technology allows for vastly more noise and infinitely more ridiculous ideas and wilder lies to be broadcast and soaked up. We've lost our distaste for personal attacks and attacks against family members. It's my opinion that folks like Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck among others have exceeded all prior experience in the botomlessness of their mendacity and has reacent leaks have shown, Fox's orders and even their scripts come directly from the GOP. Joe McCarthy was an amateur.
Sure, there was a move to prove Eisenhower was Jewish, but it got little air time and few people knew. Today it would be on the air 24/7 and people would be out in the street yelling 'Ikey' and being beyond having their minds changed just like the Republicans telling us Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. Do you recall Democrats attacking Reagan's religion, family origin or waving signs saying "kill his ugly wife and children" while displaying firearms?
I also spent a decade working for Republican candidates until I got inside far enough to see the grand larceny and other sickening corruption including a cover up of child molestation and two likely murders. I had a $50,000 donation stolen in the early 80's and misused and I was threatened not to reveal it.
That's one of the reasons I don't use my real name. I have unscrupulous enemies.
I know the standard defense is that both "sides" are the same, but they aren't. One side has made a long crusade of retribution for having ousted a president and vice president for very real crimes and they've been blatant about it.
I appreciate your being polite about this - it's rare in these times but trying to make a case for more fiscal irresponsibility by the Democrats than by the Republicans doesn't fit with my lifelong observations nor am I swayed by what seems like a shell game designed to hide the fact that debt has always climbed under Republicans and most dramatically under the last ones and that giving people like me an extra tax break doesn't boost the economy in any fashion that benefits 99% of us. Face it, a great many people and corporations don't pay any taxes in the first place and when the government tries to change that, the Republicans scream "tyranny."
You seem very motivated, but please understand that I feel like I'm discussing evolutionary biology with a theologian and there's not going to be any kind of agreement here. I prefer to spend my time enjoying the fruits of my labor and you're not going to change your mind and you're certainly not going to convince me I don't know what I'm talking about. So let's just drop it, OK?
What Fogg just said in this last comment TDC. For the record, I also appreciate that you're polite about your disagreements, but I also usually don't answer because I just don't have time to endlessly engage in debates that are destined to end in an agreement to disagree.
I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. That's obviously never going to change.
Capt Fogg wrote in part "Look, I don't have 5 hours a day to address the data dump. I'm not ignorant or uninformed or inexperienced and I've had many decades of involvement in Republican politics and profitable experience in the international monetary and financial world. "
Ive been employed since 1974 in the private sector and like yourself and not "ignorant" "uninformed" or inexperienced.
I have in technical and commercial experience internationally. Unlike you I have not worked internally on political campaigns.
-----
Capt Fogg "but trying to make a case for more fiscal irresponsibility by the Democrats than by the Republicans doesn't fit with my lifelong observations"
This is probably a difference in our backgrounds. Anecdotal evidence is one source of information. I prefer to use broad based statistics, provided they are from credible sources.
---------
Capt Fogg " nor am I swayed by what seems like a shell game designed to hide the fact that debt has always climbed under Republicans and most dramatically under the last ones and that giving people like me an extra tax break doesn't boost the economy in any fashion that benefits 99% of us"
I would end this with one last thought..is the purpose of taxes to raise money for necessary government expenditures, or to strive for a elusive goal of "fairness" of income and wealth?
Until next time
-tdc
"is the purpose of taxes to raise money for necessary government expenditures, or to strive for a elusive goal of "fairness" of income and wealth?"
If you're a lawyer, you've probably used that approach with some success. ;-) Of course the purpose of taxation is to fund the government, but does that mean various outcomes should not be considered when determining how to do it? Is fairness an ugly word or are we taking a Rorshach test where every ink blot looks like Communism? Because you're making this a binary question when it isn't in order to steer me toward the answer you're looking for.
I started out as a salesman, you know.
Say we taxed those earning less than 20,000 at 60% and nothing above that level? -- ridiculous, of course because it wouldn't be fair but of course the idea is to call Teddy Roosevelt a communist again, isn't it? Make Adam Smith a lefty. Is fairness an elusive goal or something that needs to be mocked by putting it in quotes? Really? Believe me, I'm aware of every loophole and technique that allow the very rich to pay very little and believe it or not, we're not overburdened so please give up on selling me that idea. I find that pretty presumptuous in fact.
We're not even addressing economic stability and why not? Are violent market cycles where most of us lose everything ever 10 years or so something to be desired? Think the S&L debacle was necessary to avoid being "unfair" to people like Niel Bush?
But of course you haven't shown that Democrats are trying to redistribute money for social reasons or that commerce itself isn't the redistribution of wealth.
I prefer to think that those who have used our system to greater personal benefit owe a bit more - that's all. We've been talking a very small difference here you know, as though 4% more over 250,000 net were the Communist revolution redux.
I know you have statistics and I know you know that one can interpret statistics to show one can't drown in a ten foot deep pool because it's only 9 inches deep on average. I see them differently and I see them as showing the Republican economic assertions of the last 30 or so years are not supported, unregulated markets are neither free nor stable and as far as personal anecdotes go, most of the fund managers, international banking gurus, professors and wealthy investors I know seem to agree with me.
Let me put it another way - if we were to institute the draft again, we'd of course look to the young. Would you insist that was socialism because it's less "fair" to draft a 65 year old?
Never mind, you've made up your mind and that's OK, and of course you may be right about everything, but I'm not on trial here and I'm under no obligation to play or indeed suffer through some moot court at which you've appointed yourself as judge.
Now if you'll excuse me, we're taking the boat down to Miami soon and I have things to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home