This should spark some interest....Beware of Hillary Clinton and the ''Common Good'' Ruse

[bozack]

Beware of Hillary Clinton and the ''Common Good'' Ruse
Jan Ireland
Wednesday, July 07, 2004

The Bush tax cuts enabled America to climb out of the Clinton recession despite the financial devastations of 9/11 and stock market downturns. Ten straight months of economic progress and job creation have made the economy robust.

So it is incongruous that Hillary Clinton would tell a San Francisco audience recently that Democrats will rescind the Bush tax cuts for the ''common good.''

Mrs. Clinton?s plan is not only wrong, but it?s socialist.

Ronald Reagan defeated communism, but we are still being leeched by creeping socialism. The 45 communist goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963 linger, and they were supposed to be for the ''common good'' also.

A few decades ago, the phrase itself was anathema. It does not appear in the 1945 United Nations charter, though that institution is about nothing if not socialism. Mrs. Clinton?s rarely mentioned very radical mentor, Saul Alinsky, revered it. ''The radical is that unique person to whom the common good is the greatest personal value.''

In the coming presidential election, America has a clear choice: Mrs. Clinton and universal socialism versus Ronald Reagan and universal freedom. George Bush has Ronald Reagan?s fire of freedom. John Kerry must bow to the Clintons, though his personal record certainly is also socialist.

The rapacious Mrs. Clinton wants to empower the government to take what it wants. We see her proclivities in the monstrous HillaryCare health program ("It?s time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals''), in the idea that the ''village'' (state) should raise the child, in the greedy timing of the eight million dollar book advance, in the shrill escalating rant similar to Dean?s and Gore?s. (Socialists always exempt themselves from the restrictions they place on others.)

Founder James Wilson wrote ''Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression.'' It is irrefutable. Government taking from one group to give to another approved group is socialism, Marxism, and/or communism.

Thoughts...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

My "thoughts" are that this is the most routine, uninspired attack on the concept of reasonable taxation I have ever seen. It reads like a fact-free puff piece, written by a publicist, in reverse. The only relevant way in which the GWB administration resembles that of Reagan is that they are/were both inclined toward lowering taxes and accumulating enormous deficits.

 

[IndieSnob]

Funny, I had no clue Mcarthyismn was still alive and thriving.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: DonVito
My "thoughts" are that this is the most routine, uninspired attack on the concept of reasonable taxation I have ever seen. It reads like a fact-free puff piece, written by a publicist, in reverse. The only relevant way in which the GWB administration resembles that of Reagan is that they are/were both inclined toward lowering taxes and accumulating enormous deficits.

define "reasonable" taxation, as I am sure it will vary greatly from many others.

 

[conjur]

I certainly agree that lowering the deficit by rescinding the ill-devised tax cuts is definitely for the common good.

I think you'll find Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan in agreement with Hilary on that point!

 

[DealMonkey]

Seems to me, removing only the tax cuts that favor the upper-middle class and uber wealthy and reducing the tax burden on the middle class will benefit the common good. Of course, "common good" being the largest swath of American population (i.e. the vast middle class).

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Seems to me, removing only the tax cuts that favor the upper-middle class and uber wealthy and reducing the tax burden on the middle class will benefit the common good. Of course, "common good" being the largest swath of American population (i.e. the vast middle class).

really though what consitiutes upper middle class? as what some areas might consider such others it is lower middle class, for example here in MA my wife and I do well, but I would never consider us upper middle class, but in other areas we might be considerd as such, would your tax modifications be implemented on a federal level (which one would assume for reducing the deficit) or a state level? as to be honest if either of us got hit with more taxes right now we would be sunk.

 

[Train]

it seems to be pretty commonly accepted that the tax cuts only benifit the rich, yet I have never seen data that backs this claim. According to tax bracket comparison of the pre-tax cuts and post-tax cuts Here, it appears the tax cuts affected EVERY income bracket, the lowest bracket (under 27k) getting its tax rate cut from 15% to 10%, and doubled the deduction for dependent children. what, only rich people have kids? Therefore i think the common understanding that the tax cuts ONLY help rich people is wrong.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Train
it seems to be pretty commonly accepted that the tax cuts only benifit the rich, yet I have never seen data that backs this claim. According to tax bracket comparison of the pre-tax cuts and post-tax cuts Here, it appears the tax cuts affected EVERY income bracket, the lowest bracket (under 27k) getting its tax rate cut from 15% to 10%, and doubled the deduction for dependent children. what, only rich people have kids? Therefore i think the common understanding that the tax cuts ONLY help rich people is wrong.

as said above I know that both my wife and I noticed a sizeable income boost because of the tax cuts which have helped us be able to afford more of what we want/need and also allow us to buy a house, should that be effected we might be in trouble.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Seems to me, removing only the tax cuts that favor the upper-middle class and uber wealthy and reducing the tax burden on the middle class will benefit the common good. Of course, "common good" being the largest swath of American population (i.e. the vast middle class).

really though what consitiutes upper middle class? as what some areas might consider such others it is lower middle class, for example here in MA my wife and I do well, but I would never consider us upper middle class, but in other areas we might be considerd as such, would your tax modifications be implemented on a federal level (which one would assume for reducing the deficit) or a state level? as to be honest if either of us got hit with more taxes right now we would be sunk.

thats a good point, with federally implemented taxes, people that live in areas with high cost of living get screwed vs someone who lives in a cheap area. Perhaps a cost of living adjustment should be figured into determining someones tax bracket?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Train
thats a good point, with federally implemented taxes, people that live in areas with high cost of living get screwed vs someone who lives in a cheap area. Perhaps a cost of living adjustment should be figured into determining someones tax bracket?

I believe I live in the highest if not one of the highest cost of living areas of the country (Mass) and I know for a fact if my fed goes up then I am screwed.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train
it seems to be pretty commonly accepted that the tax cuts only benifit the rich, yet I have never seen data that backs this claim. According to tax bracket comparison of the pre-tax cuts and post-tax cuts Here, it appears the tax cuts affected EVERY income bracket, the lowest bracket (under 27k) getting its tax rate cut from 15% to 10%, and doubled the deduction for dependent children. what, only rich people have kids? Therefore i think the common understanding that the tax cuts ONLY help rich people is wrong.

How about Bush's OWN claim??


Paul O'Neill's 60 Minutes interview (catches Bush in nation-building flip-flop and saying he gave tax cuts to the rich!):
http://www.lisarein.com/videos/tvclips/cbs/60min/1-11-04/1-11-04-60min-oneill-all.mov

 

[crazycarl]

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Funny, I had no clue Mcarthyismn was still alive and thriving.

have you been living under a rock or something?

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: crazycarl

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Funny, I had no clue Mcarthyismn was still alive and thriving.

have you been living under a rock or something?

No, but you may also want to tap your sarcasmn meter abit.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train
it seems to be pretty commonly accepted that the tax cuts only benifit the rich, yet I have never seen data that backs this claim. According to tax bracket comparison of the pre-tax cuts and post-tax cuts Here, it appears the tax cuts affected EVERY income bracket, the lowest bracket (under 27k) getting its tax rate cut from 15% to 10%, and doubled the deduction for dependent children. what, only rich people have kids? Therefore i think the common understanding that the tax cuts ONLY help rich people is wrong.

How about Bush's OWN claim??


Paul O'Neill's 60 Minutes interview (catches Bush in nation-building flip-flop and saying he gave tax cuts to the rich!):
http://www.lisarein.com/videos/tvclips/cbs/60min/1-11-04/1-11-04-60min-oneill-all.mov

Sorry Im not gonna download a 30MB movie at work. Second, how about some numbers, not this "OMG Bush made a slip of the tounge in an interview!", lol like thats something new.

The actual tax brackets show everyone got tax breaks, and the poorest got the same percentage as the richest.

 

[conjur]

60 Minutes transcript:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/011204B.shtml

Suskind writes that the relationship grew tenser and that the president even took a jab at O'Neill in public, at an economic forum in Texas.

The two men were never close. And O'Neill was not amused when Mr. Bush began calling him "The Big O." He thought the president's habit of giving people nicknames was a form of bullying. Everything came to a head for O'Neill at a November 2002 meeting at the White House of the economic team.

?It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,? says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

?He asks, ?Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,?? says Suskind.

?He says, ?Didn?t we already, why are we doing it again??? Now, his advisers, they say, ?Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.? And the president kind of goes, ?OK.? That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ?Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ?You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for??"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

?Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ?Stick to principle. Stick to principle.? He says it over and over again,? says Suskind. ?Don?t waver.?

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

 

[Train]

heres an interesting tax calculator:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

lets you compare how much you would pay in different years, adjusted for inflation. With my income ill pay approx $800 less this year than i did in 2000.

From 2000 to 2002 most brackets dropped by one percent, and there was a new low bracket added for the "lucky duckies" at the very bottom. In 2003 most brackets got an additional cut of two percent with a special gift for the "other" lucky duckies, the ones at the top. But note that the rich still paid more in 2003, and everybody else paid less, than was the case in 1992. Now if we could just balance the budget...

 

[crazycarl]

by the way guys, be on the lookout for these dangerous socialists!

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: crazycarl
by the way guys, be on the lookout for these dangerous socialists!

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [/qoute]

yes, but what about those middle income people carl who live in high cost of living areas who will only be hurt by higher taxes? how do tax increases help people like myself and my wife?

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: crazycarl
by the way guys, be on the lookout for these dangerous socialists!

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [/qoute]

yes, but what about those middle income people carl who live in high cost of living areas who will only be hurt by higher taxes? how do tax increases help people like myself and my wife?

Well I guess you need to find higher paying jobs then?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train
heres an interesting tax calculator:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

lets you compare how much you would pay in different years, adjusted for inflation. With my income ill pay approx $800 less this year than i did in 2000.

From 2000 to 2002 most brackets dropped by one percent, and there was a new low bracket added for the "lucky duckies" at the very bottom. In 2003 most brackets got an additional cut of two percent with a special gift for the "other" lucky duckies, the ones at the top. But note that the rich still paid more in 2003, and everybody else paid less, than was the case in 1992. Now if we could just balance the budget...

What's 3.6% of, say, $500,000 compared to 2.0% of, say, $50,000?

Who got the bigger break?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: crazycarl
by the way guys, be on the lookout for these dangerous socialists!

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [/qoute]

yes, but what about those middle income people carl who live in high cost of living areas who will only be hurt by higher taxes? how do tax increases help people like myself and my wife?

Middle income people won't be seeing tax increases under Kerry/Edwards.

 

[crazycarl]

well I wasn't exactly trying to get into the debate of specifics on tax, just pointing out that that article treats anything relating to 'the common good' ('general welfare' seems to be pretty close) as a revolutionary act equal to shooting the czars and collectivizing the farms.... but since you asked....
I'm sure your kids don't go to school, and you probably own your own gun so have no use for the police, or the military to defend you from terrorists or foreign invaders, and I would guess you have enough money to to purchase air purifiers and gas masks and water purifiesrs so your really don't need to have the EPA looking out for the environment for you. and I guess you have a chemical testing lab also so you can verify the purity of your food and medicines, and of course I'm sure you have access to private investigators to ensure that your doctors, lawyers, home contractors, etc. all have the credentials so that you can feel safe and confident in your purchase.
So I guess you also have enough money to move your family out of this country so that your kids won't have to deal with the 7.2 TRILLION dollar national debt, that could have been seriously eased by NOT slashing taxes, and NOT ramping up spending.
So, I guess paying taxes will have no benefit to you Bozack

 

[sapiens74]

No one can escape the fact that when the federal government uses those tax dollars they are inefficient at best, incompetant at worst. When the American people have those same tax dollars they put it to much better use.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: crazycarl
by the way guys, be on the lookout for these dangerous socialists!

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [/qoute]

yes, but what about those middle income people carl who live in high cost of living areas who will only be hurt by higher taxes? how do tax increases help people like myself and my wife?

"...my thoughts are to heck with them "

Zephyr