posted on March 13, 2009 03:18:23 PM new
Dear MoveOn member,
This is ridiculous. The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%—even asking if that makes him a socialist.1
But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%.
Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%!
Shocking, right?
And for all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track.2
We saw a great chart in The Washington Monthly3 that shows just how absurd Republican complaints about Obama's budget are. Check it out and pass it on:
_____________________
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who ***dared to dissent*** from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, ***may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."*** --Eisenhower
[ edited by roadsmith on Mar 13, 2009 03:18 PM ]
[ edited by roadsmith on Mar 13, 2009 03:22 PM ]
"By the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system," he said, adding, "The fact that we've had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk-taking has precipitated a crisis."
The 2010 proposed rate of 39.60% = socialism.
The 2002-2008 rates of 35.00% = capitalist nirvana.
The 39.6% rate of the 1990’s = socialism.
Everything else = down the memory hole.
That Obama fellow sure is soaking the rich, isn’t he?
posted on March 14, 2009 09:39:27 AM new
As one who already pays the high state income tax in New Jersey (8.97%), and who will be paying 39.6% federal, and who has high property taxes, and a high sales tax --- IT'S OKAY BY ME IF IT MAKES THIS COUNTRY A BETTER PLACE FOR MY CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN.
I can honestly say that paying 36% to be spent by the warmongers and business-whoring Bush regime felt much worse than a few dollars more to be used on health-care, education, infrastructure, etc. I at least have hope now.
posted on March 14, 2009 11:32:38 PM new
Oh, Cash, I TOTALLY AGREE! Well said. For the Bible folks out there, isn't there a verse in the Bible to the effect of "To whom much has been given, much will be expected"?
Those of us who are fortunate to have enough should be grateful to a country that gave us that chance and should definitely give back--and it's all for our children and grandchildren, of course!
_____________________
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who ***dared to dissent*** from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, ***may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."*** --Eisenhower
posted on March 15, 2009 06:13:23 AM new
Luke 12:48 (New International Version)
48: But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
posted on March 15, 2009 01:51:42 PM new
John F Kennedy simplified that call for social justice when he stated, “To whom much is given, much is required,” Right now, little is given while much is required. Universal health care will be a good first step in Obama's effort to reduce the gap between rich and poor.
posted on March 15, 2009 01:58:15 PM new
I googled and got this version: (I especially like the second part of that sentence!)
Luke 12:48 and surrounding verses:
"And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
"The main idea here is that we are accountable for the knowledge, resources, abilities, etc. that God has blessed us with. If we have been given much, then He expects that much more from us."
_____________________
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who ***dared to dissent*** from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, ***may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."*** --Eisenhower
[ edited by roadsmith on Mar 15, 2009 01:59 PM ]
posted on March 15, 2009 03:13:05 PM new
And isn't it interesting that people without faith in a god or religion on the left or radical left have a stronger belief in that fair minded concept than those on the right who santimoniously call themselves Christians.
Andrew Sullivan, a conservative with a heart and a conscience, is religious (the exception that proves the rule). He calls those you're referring to "Christianists" rather than Christians.
I recommend his blog http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/. I don't always agree with him, but do surprisingly often, and in my experience even when I've disagreed with him he came to his position through thought and with clarity.
For what it's worth, he considers Bush to have been a radical who should be tried for crimes against humanity. He does NOT consider him or his ilk to be conservatives.
posted on March 15, 2009 06:18:46 PM new
Just one quote from Andrew Sullivan (sorry that it's OT, but I like to tout him):
"What one yearns for is a resuscitation of a via media in American religious life – the role that the established Protestant churches once played. Or at least an understanding that religion must absorb and explain the new facts of modernity: the deepening of the Darwinian consensus in the sciences, the irrefutable scriptural scholarship that makes biblical literalism intellectually contemptible, the shifting shape of family life, the new reality of openly gay people, the fact of gender equality in the secular world. It seems to me that American Christianity, despite so many resources, has ignored its intellectual responsibility. And atheists, if this continues much longer, will continue to pick up that slack."
As it happens, I'm an atheist. However, I would have no quarrel with religious people if more of them were like Sullivan.
posted on March 15, 2009 06:58:02 PM new
Thanks for reminding me, Cash! I've read and admired Andrew Sullivan's thoughts for several years on many issues, such as the one that you just posted. It's refreshing to know that not all conservatives resemble the few that we encounter here.
Somehow I lost track of my link to his site so I appreciate your reminder.
posted on March 15, 2009 07:27:56 PM new
Way back in 2004, I posted a link to Sullivan's support of Barack Obama.
Sullivan wrote,
"Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift."
"Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats.
"Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude. . . .
posted on March 16, 2009 06:34:55 AM new
This thread is a charge by a winger alleging that John Kerry used a "communist" inspired campaign slogan, "Let America Be America Again" based on a poem by Langston Hughes. The poster attributed Andrew Sullivan's site as her source but failed to mention that Sullivan did not endorse the charge.
It was suggested that the original poster might educate herself by reading Andrew Sullivan's position on social issues.
