Posts Tagged ‘From each according to his ability’

Progressive Liberals Are The Pharisees And Sadducees Of Modernity In America

January 16, 2013

Liberals love to castigate conservatives by labels such as “fascist” and “pharisiacal.”  But in both cases, they are actually looking into a mirror when they point their finger and hurl out that label.

First, allow me to make a very important distinction between “progressive liberalism” and “classical liberalism.”

Here is classical liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy.[1][2][3]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[4] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[5] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the free-market economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[6] utilitarianism,[7] and progress.[8]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[9]

With that understanding, the fact of the matter is that conservatives are the inheritors of classical liberalism.  We are the ones who want limited government under the rule of law with a laissez-faire economic policy.  The progressive liberals who dominate today are the “social liberals” whom we can now accurately call “socialist liberals.”

Liberalism is good in the classical sense; it is truly evil in the socialist sense.

I have many times asked liberal Democrats to explain how they disavow Karl Marx’s central defining statement of economic Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  To this day I have never received a response.

But I understand that our liberals are not honest people and will not wear the label “socialist” no matter how much it applies to them and to their purpose in establishing a giant totalitarian government that increasingly centrally plans the economy.  So I’ll call them “progressive liberals” instead.

The word “progressive” helps us understand Obama’s prophecy that his administration would “fundamentally transform America.”  That’s what they want: to reshape America not in the founding fathers’ image, but in their own self-image.

I have described liberals as trying to establish “Government as God.”   It is also called “statism.”  Here’s another way to put it: Who is your Savior? Do you turn to the God of the Bible – Who actually rather specifically warned man against big government – to provide to you?  Or do you want to turn to your government to meet your needs?  Our coins say, “In God we trust,” and progressive liberals have been trying to stomp that nonsense out for decades.  Because they trust in human government, not in God.

Here let me again cite Karl Marx.  In one of his most famous statements, after first stating that man invented religion, Marx said:

“Religion is … the opium of the people.  The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”

Aside from the obvious fact that it is the Democrat Party who removed God from their party’s platform and cynically and frankly illegitimately put Him back in to a loud chorus of boos by the Democratic National Convention, aside from the fact that it is the Democrat Party that is at open war with religious freedom in America today, what did Karl Marx mean by this statement?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the economic haves and the economic have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today by the Democrat Party and by progressive liberals who energize that party.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves, in both Marx’s and Democrats’ understanding.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and taking what is theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, they were happy in their religion, which had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Since religion is an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

And how is the Democrat Party today not arguing the same damn case that Marx made?

As we shall see, this is important.  Marx’s anti-God message has been supplanted by a cynical Democrat Party who has replaced God with a flagrantly anti-God ideology (e.g., homosexual marriage and abortion) while dishonestly refusing to acknowledge that they did so.

The message of Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party is not the message of Jesus Christ, who most assuredly did not come to earth to either make Caesar’s government larger or to replace him with another version of big human government totalitarian tyranny.  The message of the former is that the poor should be angry and rise up to seize what is rightfully there’s either by vote or by force; the message of the latter was for the poor to be cheerful and content in the God Who watched over them and to trust in Him for His provision.

It’s interesting what does not happen when Jesus says, “Show me a coin.”  What Jesus does NOT say is that giving to Caesar (human government) is the same thing as giving to God.  Jesus makes a very clear contrast between the two.  Which do you want to empower?  Which do you want to give to?  Giant totalitarian human government, or God?  I want to give more to God; liberals want to stop me and force me instead to give more to government.

So why do I call the progressive liberals the “Pharisees and Sadducees” of modern America?

Well, first understand who the Pharisees and Sadducees were.  The Sadducees were the secular branch of Judaism.  They did not believe in a resurrection or an afterlife; they were the closest things to secular humanists or atheists in their day.  And thanks to the Romans the Sadducees largely controlled the lucrative Temple and the money and political clout that went along with it.  The Pharisees were a group who had the people behind them because they were the champions of the Law.  And yet they were no longer using the Law of Moses as their guide; they had long since turned to the Mishnah, which they considered “a hedge around the Law.”

Basically, the Pharisees piled laws on top of laws on the backs of the people that had nothing to do with the Word of God.  That’s what Jesus rails on them for in Matthew 23.  When I hear Jesus say, “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger,” I think of Barack Obama taking away guns from parents’ while his own family will be safely protected by men with guns for their entire lives.  I think of the liberals like Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who put people in prison for not paying their taxes when he himself was a tax cheat.  I think of Jesus’ takedown of the most vile human beings in the world of His day – government-power-seeking thugs who used the law to exploit and burden the people – and I think of the Democrat Party and the stubborn ass that is its symbol.

If you broke the laws as handed down by the Pharisees and Sadducees, you were punished by the system.  With the full weight of the government backing that system.

Which is the same thing the progressive liberals who run the Temple of big government do.  They burden the people with taxes and regulations and laws and tell the people that thinking like them is the only way to be a good person.

Pharisees and Sadducees had different agendas, but John the Baptist said they were both the same in their hostility to God and called them both “a brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7).  Jesus also lumped them together (Matthew 5:17).  Both exploited the Law to get what they wanted and to burden and oppress those whom they wanted to burden and oppress.

In Jesus’ day, when you talked about “the law” it connoted the religious laws.  But our progressive liberals today talk about the law, the law the law every bit as much with every bit as much of an intent to impose their will on the people they are determined to dominate and rule over.  I can assure you that there are a LOT more laws that have been erected in the United States than there ever were in the Mishnah – as burdensome and unjust as that was.

Democrats are the Pharisees and the Sadducees of American culture today.  They are the priests of big government who demand more and more control the laws and by controlling the laws they exploit and burden the American people.  They erect more and more and more onerous and burdensome and loathsome laws and force us to abide by them or be punished.

By the way, Jesus did a lot of denouncing of the scribes, too.  Who were they?  They were the lawyers of the day.

Just look at which party the lawyers of our day support and which party has a buttload of system-manipulating lawyers, and my case is made complete.

The scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees murdered Jesus in his day.  They are murdering America in our own.

Democrat Party Not Just Marxists, They Are Dishonest, Stupid Marxists

July 20, 2011

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his means.”

That’s a much more concise statement of a certain economic and political philosophy than Obama’s “I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too….  And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent…  “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody…  I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

And it’s similarly a lot more concise than his recent statement: “And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

But it’s the same exact stuff and it comes from the same exact source.

And, for the record, that source behind “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his means” is Marxist communism.  That statement above came from Karl Marx himself and summarizes the basic economic principle of a communist economy.

And Democrats are either too fundamentally stupid or too fundamentally dishonest (or both) to recognize and affirm their socialism.  Personally, I think it’s both.

There is another belief that is common to virtually all Democrats that is a likewise central defining tenet of Marxism; and that is the notion that the government basically owns all it’s people’s wealth and bascially graciously allows people to keep a certain amount (with the rest going to the State).  An example of this mindset was the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the cost of keeping the Bush tax cuts for “the rich” was widely reported as around $700 billion (over 10 years).

I wrote about that at some length (pointing out the pure socialist origins of the mindset), and included a statement by Brit Hume that is worth repeating:

The running argument over extending the Bush tax cuts may come to nothing if Congress decides to go home in just three weeks, but it has been a revealing exchange nonetheless. The president’s call for extending the cuts for middle class taxpayers is an acknowledgment that President Bush did not just cut taxes for the rich as Democrats are fond of claiming. He cut them for all taxpayers.

Administration officials keep saying it’s a bad idea to keep the cuts in place for wealthier taxpayers because it would cost $700 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. What they don’t say is that keeping them for the middle class which they now support would cost about three times that much.

Still, the president’s position means he agrees with Republicans that raising people’s taxes in the midst of a flagging economy is a bad idea. But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.

This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government. Americans think government is important, too. They just don’t think financing it takes priority over all else — Bret.

As I point out in my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” the same study that argued that “tax cuts for the rich” “COST” the government $700 billion ALSO argue that keeping tax cuts for the middle class “cost” the government $3 TRILLION.  Which is to say that it is INCREDIBLY dishonest and deceitful to pass off the arguments that Democrats routinely pass off.  With the help of a remarkably TASS-like American mainstream media, for what that’s worth.

I also document in that article that basically half of the American people now pay NO federal income tax at ALL.  Which, along with the demogogic rhetoric that “the rich need to pay their fair share” when the top 2% of Americans already pay 40% of the federal income taxes, is pure distilled Marxist class-warfare demagoguery.

Not only are Democrats greedy – which they routinely accuse the rich of being for wanting to keep money that DEMOCRATS want to take away – but they are thieves, too.  They are greedy, dishonest Marxist bureaucrats who want to take what is not theirs and piss it away on self-serving pet boondoggles that will benefit them politically.  A different way of putting it is that they want to seize resources from the job creators and piss it away.  They want to take money away from job creators who would invest in the private economy and use that money to purchase votes for their political campaigns.

[Update]: I hadn’t even published this article (I actually wrote it to this point on the 17th), and I already just received some powerful support for my main point.  Steve Wynn – who has described himself as a “Democrat businessman” who supported Harry Reid’s reelection campaign and who has a liberal activist for a wife – had this to say about Barack Obama and his policies:

And I’m saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the  next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate.  Regulations coming from left and right.  A President that seems, you know — that keeps using that word redistribution.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe’s ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest, they’re holding too much money.  You know, we haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.

“Pure socialism,” for what it’s worth, is “communism.”

The shoe fits.  So let’s put it on their feet (i.e. like “concrete shoes”).

Unless the American people want communism, they should reject Barack Hussein Obama and they should abandon the Democrat Party.

Even Head Of Obama’s Own Jobs Council Immelt Says Obama’s NLRB Attack On Boeing An Incredibly Stupid Idea

July 14, 2011

Jeffrey Immelt is Obama’s handpicked chairman of Obama’s jobs and competitiveness council.  He is clearly NOT a rightwing anti-union reactionary.

But get this: even Immelt thinks Obama’s war on Boeing for daring to create jobs in a non-union plant is utterly ridiculous.  From USA Today:

Asked about the fuss over the National Labor Relations Board investigating aircraft maker Boeing for opening a plant in South Carolina, Immelt said he was totally supportive of Boeing in the matter, given that the company is a major jobs creator.

“I can’t see one reason why we’d want to go down that road,” he said.  Immelt added that he felt his company has worked on improving relationships with unions, saying, “They are hungry for jobs.”

Getting good union-employer relationships requires an adjustment, he said. “It’s taken change on both sides.”

The NLRB sued Boeing in April, saying the aeronautics giant illegally retaliated against unionized Washington state workers when it opened a 787 passenger jet manufacturing line in South Carolina, a right-to-work
state.

Boeing hopes more than 1,000 non-union workers will eventually build three of the aircraft per month at the $750 million South Carolina plant, the largest industrial investment in the state’s history.

But Obama would rather see a Great Depression than allow non-union jobs.

Let me simply provide a single quote from the Seattle Times:

“The Machinists union has struck Boeing’s Puget Sound-area factories four times since 1989, most recently in 2008.”

Boeing has contracts to build the plane they are building at this South Carolina plant that specifically guarantee delivery of aircraft by specific dates.  They simply cannot play games with work-stoppage, which the union is documented to have done repeatedly.  The 787 Dreamliner has already had more than enough problems, and the last thing Boeing needs is a bunch of pampered union workers having a hissy-fit and stopping production because even though they get FAR more in salary and benefits than they deserve, it still isn’t enough for them.

Strike and its aftermath
The next major delay in the Dreamliner program came largely as a result of a 57-day machinists strike. The strike, which ended on November 1, 2008, according to Reuters, forced Boeing to delay the plane’s first flight and first delivery yet again, this time until well into 2009.

And then, just a month later, Boeing again announced delays, blaming them on supply shortages due to the strike, as well as problems with assembly. “The new schedule reflects the impact of disruption caused by the recent Machinists’ strike along with the requirement to replace certain fasteners in early production airplanes,” Boeing said at the time.

The problems continued to mount after that, and not all were due to the strike. In June of 2009, Boeing once again announced a delay in the first flight and the first delivery, this time “due to a need to reinforce an area within the
side-of-body section of the aircraft,” it said. “The need was identified during the recent regularly scheduled tests on the full-scale static test airplane. Preliminary analysis indicated that flight test could proceed…as planned. However, after further testing and consideration of possible modified flight test plans, the decision was made…that first flight should instead be postponed until productive flight testing could occur.”

On December 15, 2009, the first Dreamliner finally took air, lifting off from Payne Field in Everett, Wash., in front of a crowd of thousands of Boeing employees, fans, and journalists.

But that didn’t mean Boeing’s problems with the Dreamliner were done.

In August 2010, National Aviation Co. of India, the Indian-state-owned company that runs Air India, announced it was demanding compensation of $840 million from Boeing for delays in the 787 program. The company said the delays were hampering its growth plans, according to Bloomberg.

Boeing said at the time that it was negotiating with carriers over costs related to the delays.

As someone who has been in management, I can well-understand Boeing’s dilemma.  They can’t admit that the union has them by the balls and it really hurts when they squeeze, I mean strike.  That would be tantamount to an open invitation for the union to strike every time there was a significant deadline.  At the same time, these work stoppages are like cancer, and they have to do something to try to innoculate themselves from the cancer of unions even while they carefully try to avoid saying that the unions are bleeding them like particularly nasty leaches.  And the effects of strikes are far worse on the bottom line than they appear on paper; because after a lengthy strike, it takes workers some time to recover the groove they had been in (it’s like that famous Polock joke: “Why is it so expensive to give union workers hour lunches?  Because they have to retrain afterwards”).

So – without laying off so much as a single union worker – Boeing expanded its operation to a right-to-work state, and specifically, to a plant that HAD been union, but voted the union out as a bunch of trouble-making losers.

And that’s when Obama took off his incredibly foul-smelling loafer and began to slam it on the table shouting, “We will bury you!” at Boeing.

Barack Obama would rather see jobs go overseas to China than he would see them go to South Carolina.  That’s the bottom line.

Barack Obama is a fascist.  He is the Cloward and Piven president.  He doesn’t want a thriving America; he wants to control it no matter how small it has to become for fascist progressivist-liberalism to dominate it.

Allow me to give you a rather clear example of how Obama thinks.  As the following video of Obama in a Democrat debate will show, Obama would raise the capital gains rate EVEN KNOWING IT WOULD HURT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RESULT IN LOWER INCOME TAX REVENUES.  He would do so in the name of “fairness.”

There is a pathological, reflexive Marxist mindset that forces Obama to punish job creators even though it will result in less job creation.  Because at the core of Barack Obama’s tiny shriveled little cockroach soul, he is a Marxist who believes the central tenant of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  And Obama’s record – and the holocaust of jobs to go with the statements of small businesses that they’re not planning to hire any time soon

But we don’t need the success of Republican policies, do we?  We don’t need to have unemployment rates of 3 and 4 percent like North Dakota and Nebraska.  We don’t need to have the incredible job creation of a Texas.  We certainly don’t need to ever balance a budget.  We’ve already slit our throats by voting for Democrats, and we really might as well just keep sawing until our heads fall off so that we can end up the way we’ve already basically been since 2006 when we started electing Democrats:  completely brainless and therefore completely clueless.

Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues

September 8, 2010

We keep seeing the same liberal argument being played over and over again.  As the mainstream media seek to make their case to the American people that the Bush tax cuts should expire, one of the primary strategies being employed is to claim that Republicans are refusing to “pay for” their extension of the tax cuts.  And that therefore the Republicans will hike the deficit.  The problem is that it’s a false premise, based on a static conception of human behavior that refuses to take into account the fact that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of their money is seized from them in taxation.

As bizarre as it might seem, it is seen as perverse these days to suggest that allowing someone to keep more of the money he or she invests would stimulate people to take more risks by investing in businesses and products, and that such increased investment in business and products would in turn stimulate more economic growth.  Common sense has become akin to rocket science these days.

Then again, liberals aren’t doing much for rocket science, either.

Let’s take a look at the current facts, and then examine the history of our greatest tax-cutting presidents.

The Falsehood That Democrats Are ‘Cutting’ Taxes

Democrats say they are cutting taxes on “95% of Americans, but argue that giving the same tax cut benefits to the remaining 5% would hike the deficit and be fiscally irresponsible.

Well, for one thing, the Democrats are flat-out lying when they say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans.  That can’t possibly be true, because as a matter of simple fact a whopping 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. […]

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

What Democrats are doing – deceitful liars that they are – is giving Americans “tax credits” and calling them “tax cuts.”

tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen.  The government is cutting the amount it had been collecting from taxpayers.  A government cannot “cut” a citizen’s taxes unless that citizen had been paying taxes in the first place.

A tax credit is when you give someone money that has been collected from another taxpayer.  It is redistribution of wealth.  It is what Karl Marx described as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  Do you notice that “to” in the middle?  It means, “transferring the wealth from one government-penalized group of people TO another government-privileged group of people.”  It is what Obama described as “spreading the wealth around.”

What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.”  And it is nothing but a lie to call it that.  And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.

That’s the first point.  Democrats are advancing a central tenet of Marxism and deceitfully and even demagogically relabeling it as “capitalism.”  And the media helps them get away with it.

The Falsehood That Cutting Taxes For the Rich – But NOT The Other Classes – Contributes To the Deficit

Next comes the idea Democrats argue that tax cuts for the rich contribute to the deficit.

Let’s say for the sake of argument (just for the moment; I’ll prove it’s wrong below) that tax cuts for the rich raise the deficit.  Let me ask you one question: how then do tax cuts for the rest of us not ALSO raise the deficit???

Why wouldn’t raising taxes on the middle class and the poor not correspondingly lower the deficit?  So why aren’t Democrats going after them?

Are Democrats too stupid to realize that there just aren’t enough rich people to pay off our deficit, especially when this president and this Congress have raised said deficit tenfold over the last Republican-passed budget deficit?  The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007.  That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion; now under Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid it is $1.6 TRILLION a year as far as the eye can see.

Wouldn’t ANY tax cuts raise the deficit?  And shouldn’t we therefore tax the bejeezus out of EVERYBODY to lower the deficit?  Wouldn’t every single dollar collected reduce the deficit correspondingly?

Let me put it concretely: say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a millionaire.  And then say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a poor person.  If I took both bills to a Democrat, would he or she be able to tell the difference?  Would he say, “Ah, THIS bill will lower the deficit because it comes from a rich person; but THIS one clearly won’t because it clearly came from a poor person.”

Update, Sep. 10: A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will lose $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended.  And that sounds bad.  But they also conclude that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period.  If we can’t afford $700 billion, then how on earth can we afford $3 trillion?  And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street?  And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax? [end update].

Hopefully you get the point: if tax cuts for the rich are bad because they increase the deficit, then they are equally bad for everyone else for the same exact reason.  And so we should either tax the hell out of everyone, or cut taxes for everyone.  And a consistent Democrat opposed to “deficit-hiking tax cuts for the rich” should be for raising YOUR taxes as much as possible.

Republicans don’t fall into this fundamental contradiction (see below), because they don’t believe that tax cuts create deficits.  Democrats do.  Which means they are perfectly content with shockingly supermassive deficits – as long as its 95% of Americans who are creating those deficits, rather than 100%.

Joe Biden said it was a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.  And yet Democrats are trying to make 95% of Americans unpatriotic traitors who don’t care about their country?

Now, Democrats will at this point repudiate logic and punt to the issue of “fairness.”  But “fairness” is a very subjective thing, when one group of people decide it’s “fair” for another group of people to hand over their money while the first group pays nothing.  Even George Bernard Shaw – a socialist, mind you – understood this.  He pointed out the fact that “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

Which is to say it’s NOT fair at all.  Paul may think it’s fair, but poor Peter gets screwed year after year.

And it is a fundamental act of hypocrisy – not to mention advancing yet ANOTHER central tenet of Marxist class warfare – to claim to oppose tax cuts for the rich in the name of the deficit, but not to oppose tax cuts for everyone else.

And for the record, I despise both hypocrisy AND central tenets of Marxism.  Which is why I despise the Democrat Party, which is both hypocritical and basically Marxist.

[Update, September 20] Brit Hume demolished the Obama-Democrat argument regarding the Bush tax cuts being a “cost” to the government, saying:

But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.”

And, again, that mindset about government control and in fact government ownership over people’s wealth represents a profoundly Marxist view of the world. [End update].

For what it’s worth, Democrats will only maintain the massive contradiction of “tax cuts for the rich raising the deficit” for so long.  Obama already admitted he was willing to go back on his promise to raise taxes on the middle class.  And his people are already looking to tee off on middle class tax hikes.  In addition, if you have any private retirement funds, they may well be coming after you soon.

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln.  Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people.  Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.

Let’s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts.  And let me quote none other than the New York Times:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
.

[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]

Note the newspaper’s use of liberals favorite adjective: “unexpected.” They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they’re given the chance.  They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they’re tried.

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy.  Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means.  Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year.  And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt.  Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage?  But that’s literally the Democrats’ argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).

As a result of the Clinton-era Dot-com bubble bursting, the Nasdaq lost a whopping 78% of its value, and $6 trillion dollars of wealth was simply vaporized.  We don’t tend to remember how bad that economic disaster was, because the 9/11 attack was such a huge experience, and because instead of endlessly blaming his predecessor, George Bush simply took responsibility for the economy, cut taxes, and fixed the problem.  The result, besides the above tax revenue gains, was an incredible and unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Update September 12: Did somebody say something about “jobs”?  Another fact to recognize is the horrendous damage that will be done to small businesses and the jobs they create if the tax cuts for the “rich” aren’t continued.  As found in the Wall Street Journal, “According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.” Further, the Tax Policy Center found that basically a third of taxpayers who are expected to be in the top tax bracket in 2011 generate more than half their income from a business ownership.  And while Democrats love to point out that their tax hikes on the so-called rich only impact 3% of small businesses, the National Federation of Independent Business reports that that three percent employs about 25 percent of the nation’s total workforce.  “Small businesses that employ 20 to 250 workers are the most likely to be hit by an increase in the top two tax rates, according to NFIB research. Businesses of this size employ more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.”  So if you want jobs and an economic recovery, you simply don’t pile more punishing taxes on those “rich” people.  Especially during a recession [End update].

We’re not arguing theories here; we’re talking about the actual, empirical numbers, literally dollars and cents, which confirms Andrew Mellon’s thesis, and Warren Harding’s and Calvin Coolidge’s, John F. Kennedy’s, Ronald Reagan’s, and George W. Bush’s, economic policies.

Harding and Coolidge, Reagan and Bush, with Democrat JFK right smack in the middle: great tax cutters all.

The notion that small- and limited-government conservatives who want ALL Americans to pay less to a freedom-encroaching government are somehow “beholden to the rich” for doing so is just a lie.  And a Marxist-based lie at that.

[Update, 12/15/10]: Check out these numbers as to how the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED the taxes paid by the wealthy, and REDUCED the taxes paid by the middle class and the bottom 50% of tax payers:

Income tax burdens (from the Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report, 1996):
1981: top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes (+ 10%).

1981: top 10% of earners paid 48% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 10% of earners paid 57.2% of all personal income taxes (+ 9%).

So rich clearly paid MORE of the tax burden when their tax rates were LOWERED.

For the middle class:
1981: middle class paid 57.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: middle class paid 48.7% of all personal income taxes (- 9%).

The middle class’ tax burden went DOWN by 9%.  They paid almost 10% LESS than what they had been paying before the Reagan cuts.

For the bottom 50%:
1981: bottom 50% paid 7.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: bottom 50% paid 5.7% of all personal income taxes (- 2%).

So the Joint Economic Economic Committee concludes that if you lower the tax rates on the rich, the rich wind up paying MORE of the tax burden and the poor end up paying LESS.  When you enact confiscatory taxation policies, the people who can afford it invariably end up protecting their money.  They do everything they can to NOT pay taxes because they are getting screwed.  When the rates drop to reasonable rates, they don’t shelter their money; rather, they take advantage of their ability to earn more – and improve the economy by doing so – by investing.  If you take away their profit, you take away their incentive to improve the economy and create jobs.

Some articles to read:

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues and Help Low Income Families

[End Update, 12/15/10]

Obama Shows Off Anti-Capitalist Pro-Marxist Side – AGAIN

May 1, 2010

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Barack Hussein Obama.

Oops.  That was actually Karl Marx.  My bad.

Not that it really matters.  Both men think pretty much share the same politics.  Obama with his “spread the wealth around” mindset is basically saying the exact same thing as Marx in a slightly different way:

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

People like Andy Roth of the Club for Growth tried to warn us:

“It’s clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth.  He’s perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it.”

But Obama’s KoolAid tasted a lot better than wisdom, common sense, and basic decency.  Why work when you can confiscate someone else’s wealth by means of the tyranny of the masses and the ideology of Marxist class warfare?

Obama is a socialist.  Socialists don’t mind wealth at all: they love it.  They just want it in THEIR hands and under THEIR control, rather than anyone else’s.

Let me just give you a quick example.  Goldman Sachs is being attacked (and perhaps justly) for literally betting that the mortgage market would go bust, while misrepresenting mortgage securities to suckers who took them off their hands.

So Goldman Sachs is evil.

But which cynical, demagogic politician took more Goldman Sachs money than ANYBODY???

Barack Hussein Obama.  The little rat bastard weasel didn’t seem to mind when Goldman Sachs was making “more than enough money” to give him a million dollars to buy his victory, did he?

Meanwhile, Obama is helping his Goldman Sachs buddies make billions by means in the cap-and-trade boondoggle (and see also here).

And the primary figure behind the current Goldman Sachs scandal is a LIBERAL bagman who supported liberal Democrat Charles Schumer.

Not that truth matters, of course.

Anyway, we’ve got Barry Hussein channeling Marx yet again:

Obama goes off teleprompter and allows his socialist side to show

Barack Obama:

“I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money”

If we take President Obama at his word, there comes a point when companies and people have made enough money. Logically, it would then be moral in his eyes for the government to confiscate the rest of their earnings. President Obama went off teleprompter and allowed his socialist side to show.

Obama to Wall St.: ‘I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money’ (video)

So with all due respect about Barry Hussein: just who is this son of a bitch to lecture anybody about anything?