News-Record.com

the words are "promote the general welfare", not provide it. perhaps mr. laurent it would be wise to find out why health care costs have soared so dramatically. we all know the answer to that one.
so what happens when the wealthy are taxed into the poor house? what happens when theres only the governmet and the poor left in this country? again, we all know that answer too.
and why is that the leftists in this country learn nothing from world history? all that is happening here has happened before. and many who lived through it are warning us. eh, what do they know, we're smarter than them huh mr.laurent?

Typical liberal, tax the productive!
Reward the people that sit on their ass!
When Obama tax hikes kick in in 2011, you should be happy, you get to pay more, lots more!
You should be happy with Kay Hagan, she taxed smokers, put NC people out of work, and got free health care for illegals children.
Sorry you do not get to read stuff like this,.
Yet the press will go wild if Burr, takes his own money out of a ATM machine,
It called fair and balanced reporting.
All conservatives are bad, all liberals are good, all papers tanking.
Bye off to SC for a week of golf.Going to spend my money, before Obama and Perdue steal it.

" ... we all know the answer to [why health care costs have soared so dramatically]."

That so, Little Bean? I'll bet there is some disagremment on that. I ave on numerous times expressed my understanding - how about if you (and others) tell what you think.

Thanks in advance.

"why is that the leftists in this country learn nothing from world history?"

I would suggest while that may be true - the Little Beans (and others) might also want to study the history of other world powers, who migrate to financialization and plutocracy. As a hint - consider Conquistador Spain, 17th century Netherlands, and the British Empire ...

.. as you stated .. "all that is happening here has happened before" ...

So if I'm not in the top 5% and yet agree with the tea parties, the LTE writer thinks I am stupid (against my own best interests.)

Despite what liberals think of me, I am actually interested in the survival of the REPUBLIC. It is in my best interests, IMO, to live under limited constitution government. My republic is in danger from people who think that "promote the general welfare" means the government can do anything it d**n well pleases! If only the founders (who worried about those words "general welfare" being misinterpreted) had struck those words!

I guess, once again, mama find herself at war with her own self.

"Typical liberal, tax the productive!
"Reward the people that sit on their ass!"

So here's the funny thing .. I actually agree with Biting Dog .. except for his definition of who comprises the productive and sitting-on-their-ass people. Biting Dog is the classic example of those that would vote against their own interest because they have swallowed the dogma. Hey maybe that's where he came up with his screen name!

Momma Steam:

I think most - at least here in this blog - are actually interested in the survival of the REPUBLIC.

There is certainly danger from the government can do anything it d**n well pleases .. but the truth is that's what they've been doing for the better part of the past 150 years at an exponentially accellerating rate. But the real pigs at the trough are not the often portrayed "welfare queens" .. there is some issue with those expecting handouts .. and the number of clearly favors the lazy poor .. but the "upper crust" - equally clearly - is getting the better part of the peach .. while those in the middle - you and I and probably most in this blog .. are left with the pit.

So are you at war with yourself because you vote against your own interest - against the survival of the REPUBLIC?

Liberals have used 'Promote the general welfare' for decades to increase the welfare state. They consider it a license to steal. It seems this is the only part of the constitution, and it's in the preamble, that they care for. The rest is just an old outdated document that has outlived it's usefulness. "The founders owned slaves and never wanted women to vote yada yada yada"...but when it comes to increasing the nanny state...well it's covered right there in the preamble of this sacred document.

Thanks FDR. (honorable mention to LBJ of course!)

" ... vote against your own interest ... "

A final statememt: It is almost impossible to not vote against ones own interest .. because both parties are - while differing in rhetoric - very similar in their "work" against the own Republic.

I guess my bitch is the lack of appreciation of that fact evidenced through the neverending "LIEbural" vs. "CONservative" name calling .. it is a game we all lose merely by repeating the rhetoric.

.. as Neo - once again - proves

"it is a game we all lose merely by repeating the rhetoric."

Got an 'Amazon.com' link to show whose rhetoric you're repeating?

I heard the collective whining before I even finished the letter (with the exception of JDR). The "I've got mine. Let everyone else get their own" crowd has an early start. The lack of compassion for fellow citizens is one of the proverbial burrs under the saddle and major contributor to the division of our country, imho. The attitude that people choose to be poor and the subsequent blaming of the poor for the ills of our country is misplaced anger. It is the RICH who are the problem, again imho.

MamaB,

You forgot to include "democratic" before republic. We live in a democratic republic, not just a republic. "A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group." While the sovereignty is in each individual, it is (collectively) also in the group.

Sovereignty defined: : supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control. Thus this definition fits the individual and the group, making us a democratic republic.

btw, third party payers are why health care costs have skyrocketed. (honorable mention to ambulance chasing lawyers)

And guess what... the government would be a third party payer.

13 responses and almost half are from JDR. When I read this letter but before reading the responses I thought, hmmmm....this guy sounds exactly like JDR.

Back to 90% rate for those eeeeeevvvvvviiiiiilllll rich people as you seem to propose JDR? Perhaps a higher rate will keep Doggie in his pen instead of on a SC golf course for a week. Never mind the people employed at the hotel, golf course, restaurants, etc. that his tourism dollars will help pay their salaries.

"It is almost impossible to not vote against ones own interest .. because both parties are - while differing in rhetoric - very similar in their "work" against the own Republic."

JDR hit the nail on the head here! I can't vote for my own best interests in most elections because the choices are generally among big-government proponents of both parties. So I prioritize. First comes the guy who will keep bad countries from invading my country and punish violent criminals. After that, it's whatever guy will keep the government OUT of my life as much as possible, because I believe that government screws up pretty much anything it touches.

Anyone remember James Madison? You know, the "Father of the Constitution", that James Madison. Probably knew almost as much about the interpretation of the Constitution as anybody. He said that the "general welfare" clause referred ONLY to those powers specifically listed in the Constitution, otherwise Congress could declare anything to be in the national interest, or "general welfare", and thus have unlimited power. Things like education, health care, retirement, speed limits, and on and on and on. Turns out he was right.

Very well written letter.

When referring to the stereotypical "poor sitting on their asses", don't overlook how some of the richest people in this country are ripping off us all. For examples see FREE LUNCH: How the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves at government expense (and stick you with the bill), David Cay Johnston, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2007, ISBN-13: 978-1-59184-191-3
Comments: http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/09/free-lunch-davi.html

It puzzles me when I hear people complain about big government and how the government overreaches. People complain about federal and state taxes, but, they never reconcile how you provide services if the revenue from taxes decrease or how you provide services and programs if you don’t tax citizens. And if services or programs are cut, they then complain about those who haven’t pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. If left to their own devices, most Southern states would not have made the right, you could say, moral choices, when it came down to civil rights. Charlotte would probably still be fighting against busing if it had not been for the US government and interracial marriages would still be illegal in the state of Virginia. So, the federal government had to step in to help people make the “decent” choices. People complain (mainly Republicans) about big government, but, they expect the government to protect them, educate them (in the form of Pell Grants and college loans), provide them with homes (GI Bill), provide them with medical coverage (Medicare and Medicaid), help them with finances during periods of unemployment and to provide some form of financial relief in retirement.

The criticism would be more credible if Republicans offered up solutions, but, I am struck by what a columnist wrote after Sen. switched party affiliation. The columnist wrote “How much more can the Republicans take? Demoralized, shrinking and seemingly lacking an agenda beyond the word no..."

conundrum: great post.

We really need to get past arguing about taxes. They are going to go up. They have to. We have to pay for Bush's Wars, as well as pay the cost of the bailouts (TARP started under Bush, not Obama).

It's really hard for me to swallow the limited government bullcrap when the Republican Party oversaw the greatest intrusion of government into all aspects of life since the founding of our nation.

I registered as a Republican on my 18th birthday, and am still a conservative on many issues. And while I expect politicians to say one thing and do another, the sheer gall of the GOP today is more than I can stomach. So now I'm a Democrat (a Reagan Democrat, if you prefer).

The Republicans need to just shut the hell up until they come up with an agenda that the public will embrace. Americans have overwhelmingly rejected limited government principles of the Republican Party because Republicans don't really believe in them or support them unless it serves their immediate political purposes.

The Reagan era is over. Time for something new. If you're going to look back for inspiration, look at Teddy Roosevelt.

But until you come up with a new message to attract me back to the GOP, quit your whining. You are not part of the solution. You are the problem.

I do not agree with the comments that say we have to have all these taxes to pay for all this "guvmint" provided services.
We don't need all these services, but that doesn't matter, we get them anyway.

Panacea said " We really need to get past arguing about taxes. They are going to go up. They have to. We have to pay for Bush's Wars, as well as pay the cost of the bailouts (TARP started under Bush, not Obama). "
I don't want to intrude on your dream but, "
Obama voted for this bailout as did most democrats in 2008."
Please, tell how Obama has slowed down any of our deficits, since he took over?

Obama's vote was one of one hundred. The TARP money was proposed, organized, and supported by Republicans. If you don't like the bailout, look to Bush.

Certainly the deficit is going to increase. Bush squandered the SURPLUS built up under CLINTON, then left us with a terrible deficit. And yes, it's going way, way up under Obama.

Yes, that does worry me. It does worry me that the deficit is going up. What encourages me is Obama is pushing the Democrats for "pay as you go" meaning all budget items must be paid for. If the money's not there, the bill has to describe how it will be raised (new taxes, etc).

Obama is not ignoring or minimizing the deficit. He's dealing with the bad situation Bush left him with.

"Bush squandered the SURPLUS built up under CLINTON"

There was no surplus. Never existed. The Clinton surplus is a myth along the lines of people waking up in a hotel bathtubs full of ice with a kidney missing.

"People complain about federal and state taxes, but, they never reconcile how you provide services if the revenue from taxes decrease or how you provide services and programs if you don’t tax citizens."

Cut the damn pork out, end the mindless paperwork shuffle that justifies jobs at state agencies and give supervisors a cattle prod to encourage slack lifers with state job mentality to up their production.

The national debt was $4.351 trillion prior to slick willie's first budget proposed in 1994. When he left office in 2001, the debt was $5.770 trillion. (only to the media and the droids is this a 'surplus')
The surplus myth was conjured up by the media to keep the gullible pulling the D lever.

“Got an 'Amazon.com' link to show whose rhetoric you're repeating?”

Nope – an N-R link:

http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2009/04/taxes_are_hardly_unfair_to_the.shtml#comments

Posted on April 30, 2009 6:21 AM

“Back to 90% rate for those eeeeeevvvvvviiiiiilllll rich people as you seem to propose JDR? Perhaps a higher rate will keep Doggie in his pen instead of on a SC golf course for a week. Never mind the people employed at the hotel, golf course, restaurants, etc. that his tourism dollars will help pay their salaries.”

Dan – are you being obtuse?

The 90% rate “as [I] propose” would have absolutely NO impact on Doggie or “the people employed at the hotel, golf course, restaurants, etc.” .. or you or me for that matter. ZERO, NADA, Nothing.

Actually that’s not true. The 90% rate “as [I] propose” would significantly LOWER taxes on Doggie and “the people employed at the hotel, golf course, restaurants, etc.” .. as well as you and me.

“First comes the guy who will keep bad countries from invading my country … “

Ah the great question. We’ll ignore the detail bin Laden was not a country. Did letting him escape, not “taking out” the Islamic Radicals, buying the friendship of warlords, propping up the arguable illegitimate Pakistan Government, demonstrating to the world that the USA can disappear people as did Saddam, etc., “keep bad countries from invading my country? Ah the great question.

“ … and punish violent criminals.”

We’ll ignore details that include te threat of punishment deters but a small fraction of violent criminals.

“Anyone remember James Madison?”

It can be readily argued that John Adams was the public voice of the Constitution .. but equally clearly Madison was the great behind-the-scenes mover. FWIW .. ALL those guys were into “things like” education of the public … to keep Tyrants at bay through an informed citizenry.

Conundrum / Panacea:

I’m sure I do not totally agree .. taxes “are going to go up. They have to”.

The Laffer theory is a Gaussian Curve with revenues shown at zero when the tax rates at 0% .. and revenues at zero when tax rates are 100%. There is an assumed sweet spot (maximum revenue) at x%). Laffer is the rationalization used to either lower rates for more revenues (if you assume one side of the sweet spot) or the rationalization used to raise rates for more revenues (if you assume the other side of the sweet spot).

Here’s a detailed explanation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

Problem is – counter to the Heritage Foundation’s Rosie rhetoric and cherry picked data .. there is no way to precisely define the curve. It certainly it is not a simple curve – indeed there may be several sweet spots and one never know we actually are at any point - plus there are clearly other things affecting the economy besides tax rates.

Bush Did NOT squandered the SURPLUS built up under CLINTON .. even Neo and Hugh and I agree on this one.

Yes there was a brief time where the Fed’s took more in than they spent – but it was still not a true surplus since the debt never came close to being paid off. We simply were putting less on the National Credit Card … but I do agree Bush left Obama with a bad situation – mostly through simply ignoring the problems (like never putting the Iraq War on the Budget, or actually doing anything about the CDS and Mortgage Games that Bush apparently was “so concerned about” .. what with BJ Barney having all that power and such.

"so what happens when the wealthy are taxed into the poor house (sic)?"

Explain to me, idiot, how an increase from 36% to 39.5% on everything over $250,000 per year is going to send anyone to the poorhouse?

People who think (if the verb applies) as you do were content to waste seven trillion dollars as long as was just to kill innocent civilians in Iraq, a sovereign nation that never threatened us. But when the time comes to spend some money to benefit the American people, you say "no" to that.

Well, no one is listening to you any more, idiot.

More so than anyone else on this planet, people who think as you do are the enemies of America and everything that makes her great.

"so what happens when the wealthy are taxed into the poor house (sic)?"

Explain to me, idiot, how an increase from 36% to 39.5% on everything over $250,000 per year is going to send anyone to the poorhouse?

People who think (if the verb applies) as you do were content to waste seven trillion dollars as long as it was wasted only to kill innocent civilians in Iraq, a sovereign nation that never threatened us. But when the time comes to spend some money to benefit the American people, you say "no" to that.

Well, no one is listening to you any more, idiot.

More so than anyone else on this planet, people who think as you do are the enemies of America and everything that makes her great. And needless to say, you make me puke.

Ahhhh, back from a 9 hour work day and a four hour drive home. The reward is I get to keep some of the money I earned today. Interesting conversation since I posted in my hotel room this morning. Two things caught my eye:

Panacea: "What encourages me is Obama is pushing the Democrats for "pay as you go" meaning all budget items must be paid for. If the money's not there, the bill has to describe how it will be raised (new taxes, etc)."

I remember Nancy Pelosi advocating the "pay as you go" system after the Ds took over Congress after the '06 election. How has that gone?

This "encouragement" of "pay as you go" is laughable. Yes Bush and the R Congress were reckless on spending, I've always complained about that. Yes Bush initiated TARP I, I complained about that. Obama has initiated TARP II, the stimulus bill, and the new budgets, all of which will dramatically increase the deficit.

Sooner or later the bill will arrive. Then there will be hell to pay.

****************************************************

Tony Ledford: posts one time calling someone an idiot multiple times and thinks it didn't take, so he posts the same thing again and decides to add "And needless to say, you make me puke." to the end. Too funny.

Hint to Tony, leaving out calling someone and idiot and displaying a bit of patience to see if your first post took will greatly improve your argument, and image.

Explain to me Tony, how will raising taxes on those making $250K plus from 36% to 39.5% pay for all the new spending? Answer, it won't. Taxes will have to go up much more that that and for more people.

Again there will be hell to pay.

Oh, and honorable mention to you JDR for a 6 in a row shooting spree. You must have worked all day too and had to unload. Good for you guy.

Sorry, Dan; I'm not news-record.com's webmaster, don't hold me responsible for how it functions.

Raising the top marginal tax rate back to where it was in 1993 won't pay for the *old* spending, either, the seven trillion dollars the illegal war in Iraq will end up costing. But more revenue will always be more helpful than less revenue in paying down debt.

Here is an idea I've proposed before (in another forum) that will help even more, at least with the *old* spending.

Identify every civilian who supported and/or profited from the illegal war in Iraq. Not only elected officials, but boards of directors and investors (not counting those invested in mutual funds) in companies for whom the war was started, companies like KB&R and its parent company Halliburton, and seize all their assets.

Not only would it make a dent in the bill these people ran up, but it might remind people to think twice in the future before supporting or profiting from the *next* illegal and immoral war.

The simple fact is that the people who are whining about debt and spending right now only abhor the spending when it is beneficial to the American populace. If the money is spent to blow up innocent Muslims or kill brown people in general, they don't care how many trillions are spent.

So much to address, so little time...

1. Yes, the rising cost of malpractice insurance does have an effect on the cost of healthcare, but healthcare is inherently going to continue to be relatively more expensive because health services do not become cheaper with gains in technology nor through economies of scale. Does anybody else remember that a simple digital watch once sold for $200, a 4-function calculator sold for $300, and a p.c. with 8 megs of RAM could not be had for less than $1500?

2. Tea Party people: Your taxes are lower under Obama's plan, so you can't be protesting against higher taxes; Bush absolutely destroyed the trend of budget surplus left by Clinton, yet you remained silent for 8 years of Bush, so you can't be complaining about runaway government spending; you do have representation in Congress, so you can't be whining about that either, despite your best attempts to liken your complaints with that of the Colonial 'Sons of Liberty'. So what's left? Why are you REALLY protesting. Be honest.

3. There is a difference between the National Debt and a Budget Surplus/Deficit. The National debt is the total amount of indebtedness our government has incurred. The Budget Deficit/Surplus only applies to a specific fiscal year. Clinton's last years in office were marked by Budget Surpluses. This is not a hoax.

4. Government spending is part of aggregate demand. Since the private sector is not spending, the government has the Responsibility through its fiscal policy to step in and stimulate demand with increased spending. There is not one economist, or, indeed, one person who stayed awake during Macro Economics 101, that I am aware of who honestly disagrees with this premise. In fact, the only consistent criticism I hear from economists is that Obama's stimulus plan is not big enough.

5. The government has had roles in various segments of the economy, which have been classified as a 'public good'. Rail transportation, telephone companies, utility companies, etc have all been heavily regulated by the government, because it was in the Nation's best interest that it do so. I submit that our Nation's health care system meets the criteria of being a public good as well, thus giving the government a legitimate role in its regulation/ reformation.

6. To the 1%ers: if you would like to switch incomes with me to avoid being 'taxed to the poorhouse' please leave contact information in this blog. I will check it daily.