Obama’s economic stimulus plan calls for higher taxes on people who earn over $250K after 2011. Will anyone earn that much by then?
Not for Long
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
19 Comments. Leave new
Not true, Ted. Economic messes like this are just opportunities for the truly wealthy to reposition their wealth. All those CEOs of failed corporations soaked up millions in free money for themselves. This is just an orgy of theft and those people will be doing just fine. However, they may not call what they make 'income' because it may not be from jobs. The ability to claim you 'make money' while not producing anything…..I dunno, seems like institutionalized theft to me.
Rush Limbaugh thinks the economy is just fine. For him, it is.
The other day I was having dinner with this really rich art collector who says he is "moving out of America."
I asked where he was going. He told me he was moving to Nicaragua.
Guess Obama is too radical for them…better move right!
Ted,
In the last gigantic depression, a tiny group of plutocrats managed to stay rich. It'll happen again.
But don't you worry, Obama will chicken out and not institute a tax on the rich. He'll fuck over the middle class. Because he isn't the Dem he claimed to be.
Wine is never that shade of red.
When did Rush Limbaugh say the "economy is just fine"?
Rush Limbaugh has insisted on many occasions that this economy isn't nearly as bad as the one in 1984. Do your own research on it, Anon.
onetwothree the freshly poured blood of the exploited working class is, though.
I think whoever they drained is eating too well, though, how are they managing to get enough iron?
"I built myself an empire …"
Kiss Me, Son of God – They Might Be Giants
The idea behind an insanely high tax rate for the ultra-rich is not to get more money out of them, but to stop them from earning so much in the fist place, leaving more for us to earn.
We should bring the tax rate for these guys back up to 75%.
That's not wine – it's the blood of a minority.
Do your own research on it, Anon.
Cop-out. As much as I dislike Rush, if you're going to attribute a statement to him (or any public figure) then at least be able to back it up with a citation or three.
PhoenixM,
I read your post in another thread about how you busted your ass in college, and that is why you deserve to make more than your blue collar friends. Well, many others have done the same, and they don't feel the same way as you.
First, sacrifice does not equal wealth. Second, there is not enough room in college for everyone.
Finally, how could you be against everyone making the same amount of money?! It is the the ultimate, unreachable, ideal fantasy! You are not supposed to be against it, you are just supposed to say that it is not possible to get there.
also, when did aggie attribute a statement to Rush Limbaugh?
Quoth Angelo:
Finally, how could you be against everyone making the same amount of money?! It is the the ultimate, unreachable, ideal fantasy! You are not supposed to be against it, you are just supposed to say that it is not possible to get there.
Angelo, frankly I don't know when you are being sarcastic or not. I, for one, am against it. How much someone makes is not to be dictated from up on high (no, that does not mean your boss, but an overbearing daddy state). People are different, have different skills, those skills are in different demand, and have different shots at luck.
It's not that it is unattainable, it is also unfair.
Rush Limbaugh has insisted on many occasions that this economy isn't nearly as bad as the one in 1984. Do your own research on it, Anon.
OK, but that is not the same as saying the economy is just fine.
Unlike Ted Rall, who thinks most Americans, at least most of the ones he talks to, are "liberals" (read, old-fashioned commies), Gallup finds that most of them oppose so-called income redistribution.
Of course, "income redistribution" is a misnomer. There is no finite big pile of dough waiting to be fairly apportioned by a a wise, magnanimous and omniscient state father-figure. If anything, the state succeeds immensely at preventing people from creating new wealth that can benefit all.
Phoenix, I do not feel the need to hold myself to a higher standard than the people who are STILL insisting that the way to solve economic crises is to get government out of the market. No amount of reality changes the way ideologues think, this is why liberals are constantly pegged as flip floppers and wafflers, because they adapt their mindset based on changing realities.
The current conservative movement in the United States is incapable of doing that, the only thing they do is retool their marketing strategies and image. Michael Steele is not under fire right now because he's not adjusting the core ideological stance of the GOP, he's under fire because his retooled image and marketing strategy is a farce.
Why challenge my (rather vague) assessment of what Rush Limbaugh says, implies, or thinks, and let the big fish off the hook for their moronic blanket statements about what how we haven't gone far enough to the right yet? It is as farcical as Michael Steele's attempts to gain inner-city (read: black) street cred by talking to R&B musicians and making a fool out of himself.
It is an easy assessment to look at the spending habits of Republicans and Democrats since Reagan: Republicans grow the government equivalently, but dump the money into defense. Defense=stronger military, and the US military has been used since World War II to advance the freedom of American corporations to go into any part of the world and exploit resources to maximize profits of shareholders who don't have any idea what the companies they invest in do to local populations, the environment, etc.
These are empirical issues, and if you worked your ass off in college you should have figured them out. The "freedom" that Republicans want to advance in the world is the freedom of companies to rape the earth wherever they see fit. They do not target countries and societies based on violations of human rights, or lack of individual liberties, but specifically those that close their populations and societies off from that exploitation.
The clue is right out there for you to reach out and get. All you have to do is decide to get it.
I don't often agree with Aggie, but he is exactly right: both the Democrats and the Republicans are for big government, the Dems wasting it on special interests, organized labour and so on, and the Repugs on defense contractors.
You seriously need more competition in the political "marketplace". Perhaps some political deregulation might do the trick, eh?
Anonymous said…
Rush Limbaugh has insisted on many occasions that this economy isn't nearly as bad as the one in 1984. Do your own research on it, Anon.
OK, but that is not the same as saying the economy is just fine.
I just won a lot of money because I went to Vegas and bet that was precisely what you were going to say.
Rush Limbaugh has been incredibly consistent for his entire public life, I think I'm smart enough to interpret what he means, even if I don't find exact quotes for you.
Do you need training wheels or something? I'm sick of people who nitpick like this as though it's relevant to anything.
Anon, go check yourself into an assisted suicide clinic and rid us of the annoyance.
Are you guys high? Investing money produces fucking everything tangible. How do you think people open factories?
Good fucking god. Crass capitalism is obnoxious, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where nobody understands the point of lending anything, or even the exchange of goods and services.
Oh, sorry, doing so would create disparity. Buying a sandwich would create a carpetbagger out of the deli guy. Wait…I mean…fuck the rich! signed, middle class anarchist
I think I'm smart enough to interpret what he means, even if I don't find exact quotes for you.
Because you inferred something does not mean someone else implied it. Why not just admit you were incorrect? The mistake was yours; own it.