« Steel Magnolias | Main | Rightroots Challenge -- Day 2 »

McCain-Feingold

The Club for Growth has a great roundup of McCain-Feingold commentary, much of which was sparked by this Examiner editorial.

(Off topic, but while you are at the Examiner, don't miss Win Myers' excellent piece about how European elites are bullied by radical Islamists.)


Comments (12)

Maybe off topic but since n... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Maybe off topic but since no one is commenting here I was wondering about the Club for Growth and many Conservatives ideas about taxes.


If you repeal the estate tax and make Bush's other tax cuts permanent will you not eventually end up with a wealthy elite class of inhereted riches and a shrinkage of the middle class? The wealthy elite will never have to actually work or contribute anything to the economy except their capital if even that. It really seems like a return to a Monarchy which is in large part why we fought the Revolutionary war. At best we, IMO would simply become more like Mexico with a small wealthy elite basically holding all the power in a one party system.

Muirgeo,Only if you ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Muirgeo,
Only if you assume that the total amount of wealth is a fixed amount that never can expand or contract.
Only if you assume that money in the "pockets" of the wealthy is held in a vault, ala Scrooge MacDuck, and never spent.
Only if you assume that one can only obtain wealth at the expense of others.

And no, we did not fight the revolution because of monarchy. We fought it because the colonies felt they were getting shaffted because of unfair taxation and that their property rights weren't being respected as they should.

To add to SCSIWuzzy's point... (Below threshold)

To add to SCSIWuzzy's points:

Only if you assume that the wealthy don't know about such things as trust funds and other loopholes they've bought themselves in the tax code.

Only if you assume that the vast majority of family fortunes are more than a generation or two old. (Hint: look at Fortune Magazine's list of richest people, and see how many are self-made. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett didn't inherit a hell of a lot, and the Walton money is only a generation old.)

Here's an observation I heard a long time ago, and have repeatedly seen demonstrated over and over and over again: almost no one ever gets hired by someone poorer than themselves -- except politicians.

J.

We should also point out th... (Below threshold)

We should also point out that Bush's tax cuts are simply not large enough to have the effect that muirgeo is assuming.

More importantly, we aren't actually seeing a shrinkage of the middle class so much as A) a fairly widespread movement of established American wage earners into the upper classes ($100K+) and B) a rapid growth of the poorest classes because of an influx of impoverished immigrants. Thus, the sheer scale of our current immigration wreaks havoc on liberal social programs and ideals and hurts the search for a more equitable society.

You want to build a society in which our social safety net remains strong and citizens share a set of common ideals? Then the last thing you'd want to do is to overwhelm that safety net with massive numbers of people from a different culture. Much better would be a prudent, patient approach to our common welfare and the self-discipline to grow immigrant populations at rates that don't shred our support systems. Of course, patience and prudence are in short supply on the liberal left and self-discipline seems to have little "market value" for businesses that want the cheap labor *now* so I hold little hope that either will cooperate in such a venture.

Some of us are <a href="htt... (Below threshold)
JimK:
OK then...is it a good thin... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

OK then...is it a good thing if wealth is being accumulated in greater amounts by a small fraction on the top?

To put it another way do you think currently the top wealthiest 1% who own 60% of all Americas wealth is a good thing? Is it a good thing if that percentage goes up even more? Finally, do they own so much wealth because the current tax system, laws and their access to power create an unfair advantage for the wealthy? Or is their wealth a reflection of a fair and free market system?


One more thing. If you could set up the government the way you wanted, for most conservatives I'd presume smaller government, less taxes and a simplified tax system, do you think the concentration of wealth in the top 1% would go up or down?

Here's a decent link to think about some of these issues.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

Muirgeo,Only if you ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Muirgeo,
Only if you assume that the total amount of wealth is a fixed amount that never can expand or contract.
Only if you assume that money in the "pockets" of the wealthy is held in a vault, ala Scrooge MacDuck, and never spent.
Only if you assume that one can only obtain wealth at the expense of others.

And no, we did not fight the revolution because of monarchy. We fought it because the colonies felt they were getting shaffted because of unfair taxation and that their property rights weren't being respected as they should.

Posted by: SCSIwuzzy

For the first comment....I note recently productivity went up like 20%, income for the top earners rose dramatically and the middle class was stagnant and the poor loss ground.

For the second...Ideally the rich would re-invest and their money would not be circulated to others, it could be invested in off shore accounts or in companies over seas...and they could still live off their dividends never going into their capital seemingly indefinitely.

As far as your third comment.....yes I believe you can earn wealth at the expense of others. For example I believe many wealthy people LOVE the expansion cheap immigrant labor which makes them richer and others less so. And thus their wealth is accumulated by breaking the rules and a government which sees them as donors and thus looks the other way.....ignoring the desires of their base to control the issue.

The point is not how rich t... (Below threshold)

The point is not how rich the rich are getting. The point is how rich the POOR are getting.

Households below our "poverty level" typically own an automobile, two televisions, have air conditioning and cable TV service. Their most pressing dietary problem is obesity, not starvation or malnutrition.

If a fellow earns several millions, and pays his full lawful taxes on it, why should it be taxed again just because he dies?

The resentment of the wealthy isn't a typical belief of poor people. In America, most poor people want to improve their own station by their own efforts, not have money stolen from someone else to be given to them.

No, the anti-rich attitude is one of the slackers, who will not contribute to society in any valuable fashion, but expect its support in return for their mere existence.

No, the anti-rich attitude ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

No, the anti-rich attitude is one of the slackers, who will not contribute to society in any valuable fashion, but expect its support in return for their mere existence.

Posted by: Jim Addison


Jim I'm not anti-rich. What I am is anti-use the government to get richer. That's anti-corporate welfare. I think the reason the wealthy are gaining more wealth is not because they are working harder but because the working class is working harder. And because the system is NOT a free market system or a fair tax system or a fair political one but it is a system designed by the wealthy and powerful with their own interest in mind. They also control politicians, the tax laws, influence the lack of enforcement of hiring illegals..ect.... They are wealthy because they undermine both democracy and the market with their money. I don't see people like you defending the democracy or fair markets.

When you have good government policy and a strong middle class you get more schools, more roads and more laws that favor everyone.....more equity.

Now with the wealthy in charge they are taking more of the public wealth for themselves leaving less for the average worker as well as diverting money from useful things like infrastructure to less useful things like bombs and no-bid contracts.

Jim do you want our country to look more like the 1920's or more like the 1970's?

I think history is clear showing Republican Lassez Faire policies leads to greater inequities, less efficient markets and even depressions....while Democratic rule since FDR led to a booming economy a booming middle class and less inequity. No doubt the top tax rates got WAY out of control.

But my biggest gripe is when people talk about re-distribution of wealth they forget that it can go both ways. Right now the re-distribution is going towards the already very wealthy. And NOT because they are working harder but because the working class is working harder and being more productive. It's up to the voting public to make the rules work for greater equity. And that doesn't just mean raising taxes and more welfare programs.

I suggest there are reasons nothing is being done about immigration or serious tax law reform/simplification.....the rich don't want anything done and thus a full complement of Republicans in charge of our government has done NOTHING on these issues of major concern to their base.

The very systems base line Republicans hate, like big government, are exactly what the controlling class wealthy want.

And muir achieved his goal ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

And muir achieved his goal of turning the discussion from yet another outright assault on the First Amendment championed hardest by the far left into a discussion of tax policy, where he seems to be more than a little over his head.

Kudos to you, muir.

To put it simply, the rich HIRE people. They EXPAND the employed base. The number of people becoming rich is EXPANDING.
-=Mike

To put it simply, the rich ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

To put it simply, the rich HIRE people. They EXPAND the employed base. The number of people becoming rich is EXPANDING.
-=Mike

Posted by: MikeSC

Yeah...Illegals and people in India and China.

How come you want to repeat the 5 decades of Republican rule that lead to a Great Depressions?

5 decades of Republican rul... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

5 decades of Republican rule?

Care to explain when the world that ever happened?

And the only reason we avoided a depression in the early 80's was that Carter was drummed out of office.
-=Mike




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy