Random thought of the day
Why is it that liberals like Barbara Streisand talk about how the Bush tax cuts primarily benefit the top 1% of our country, yet Obama and most liberals want to extend the tax cuts for the middle class? If the Bush tax cuts primarily benefit the top 1% of the country, why extend them for anyone?
posted by Helen at 4:36 PM
40 Comments:
Idiots like Streisand don't understand that the bottom 50% pay almost no income tax as it is. While the top 1% pay 37% of federal income tax which is nearly double their share of income (19%).
Tax cuts will always favor those who pay taxes. You can't have a tax cut if you don't pay any taxes. It's Streisand just spouting the typical class hatred talk of the liberals, even though she's in the hated class.
Short answer: it's called cognitive dissonance. Liberals are heavily infected with it.
For all their blather, they know that if middle class folks find out their taxes have gone up, there will be hell to pay the next election.
Streisand is emoting against the people who are richer than her.
She is stupid. And likely borderline. Most of the entertainers are personality disordered.
By letting the tax cuts expire, the Democrats are raising the lowest tax bracket by 50%. That is right, 50%. But they are the party that cares about the little guys.
Trey
"Streisand is emoting against the people who are richer than her."
---
Well, maybe if she quit emoting she could logically think of ways to make a few bucks herself.
On the other hand, if she is richer than other commenters here, it means she is obviously smarter. So I don't understand how commenters could be critical of her.
"She is stupid."
----
She's richer than you will ever be.
And that's all that matters.
She sure is richer than I will ever be! Too bad you can't buy brains or peace.
Trey
She's richer than you will ever be.
And if she where honest, she'd sell her mansions, cars, jets, and so on and cut a check to the federal government. The IRS will accept donations.
Look at the educational backgrounds of the Hollywood crowd. For a dollar-to-education ratio, acting/performing is the #1 industry where a high school dropout can become a multi-millionaire by age 25.
Second place: pizza delivery guy & gas pump jockey.
You routinely see Susan Sarandon and other actresses mouthing off about geopolitics, but when was the last time Madeleine Albright and Condi Rice debated the challenges of playing Desdemona vs. Lady Macbeth? They wouldn't stoop so low as to pontificate on something they're utterly clueless about. Actors, on the other hand, do this professionally.
Hollywood liberals are paid phenomenal money to PRETEND. Acting and performing is all about PRETENDING.
That, combined with a educational pool so shallow it wouldn't support a colony of tadpoles, is why Hollywood liberals are soooooooo vapid and ignorant.
It isn't "cognitive dissonance," not by a mile. Read Samuel Taylor Coleridge. It's the "willing suspension of disbelief." The credibility of evidence presented to support a premise is directly proportional to the desirability of the premise.
These idiots have spent so long listening to applause and being bedazzled by flashing camera bulbs, they actually think they're smarter than the lines someone else gives them.
Pure D-E-N-I-A-L.
It's a condition called talking out of both sides of your mouth, not really curable if also occurring concurrently with another condition called "progressivism", "socialism", often "baby-boomer" (especially if one of those over-medicated for a decade or two, or more, for that condition). The rich get all the deserts in spite of the largest chunk going to middle class (3 trillion compared to 700 million for the rich) and yet we can afford 3 trillion but not 700 million and yet all the tax cuts are for the rich. Huh? As I said, some things are not curable in some groups.
I think we should dispense with the notion that RICH == SMART.
If we look at them, some rich people are smart, and some of them aren't very smart, but they are rich.
I agree with Wallace Wattles:
WHATEVER may be said in praise of poverty, the fact remains that it is not possible to live a really complete or successful life unless one is rich. No man can rise to his greatest possible height in talent or soul development unless he has plenty of money; for to unfold the soul and to develop talent he must have many things to use, and he cannot have these things unless he has money to buy them with.
And also
But everywhere we see rich and poor living side by side, in the same environment, and often engaged in the same vocations. When two men are in the same locality, and in the same business, and one gets rich while the other remains poor, it shows that getting rich is not, primarily, a matter of environment. Some environments may be more favorable than others, but when two men in the same business are in the same neighborhood, and one gets rich while the other fails, it indicates that getting rich is the result of doing things in a Certain Way.
-
Robert wrote: "No man can rise to his greatest possible height in talent or soul development unless he has plenty of money;"
Really? Jesus did pretty well and he was basically homeless there at the end.
Trey
Trey,
Actually, that was a quote from Wallace Wattles. I agree with it.
Since Jesus was able to put money in
fishes mouths at will for his disciples to retrieve, I think it safe
to say he had all of the money he wanted.
-B
"You routinely see Susan Sarandon and other actresses mouthing off about geopolitics, but when was the last time Madeleine Albright and Condi Rice debated the challenges of playing Desdemona vs. Lady Macbeth? They wouldn't stoop so low as to pontificate on something they're utterly clueless about. Actors, on the other hand, do this professionally."
Sounds like the Dunning-Kruger Effect - the dumber you are, the smarter you think you are.
Good one Robert! Touche!
Trey
There seems to be a few remarks about wealth and "Jesus."
Allow me to share with you an anecdote about the meaning of "wealth."
The Scottish-American Naturalist, John Muir, left Scotland at the age of around 6 years. At the time his parents took him away from the "old world" to the "New world," he said Goodbye to his grandfather, who handed him a gold coin.
It was the peak of John Muir's monetary wealth. In the entire duration of his remaining years, he never knew wealth of that nature ever again.
When he was in his 40s, he was known to have been arrested for vagrancy and similar charges, owing to the fact that he slept (not in the sexual sense) with sheep in their pastures while he abided in their whereabouts.
One day, while he was visiting in the area of San Fransisco, he dined with friends. There was talk in the newspapers about a railroad magnate who possessed wealth beyond imagination. This magnate was embroiled in a legal fight with the US gov't over land rights (remember that railroads owned 2 miles on either side of the tracks), and Muir made the claim that he "was wealthier than this magnate."
"What absurdity!" his friends claimed.
But was it?
"By what right do you claim to be more wealthy than the richest man in North America?!" his friends asked.
"I have more money than I could possibly need," he said, "and this fellow does not."
And there, my so-called conservative friends, is the definition of "wealth."
Here endeth the lesson.
Well, Helen's not jealous of him either.
Having money doesn't make a person anything but rich. An idiot with money is just a rich idiot.
I think that most "big time "entertainers" feel guilt for making so much money for their very thin talents. They have no concern about the population living here in "flyover country."
Well, Babs can sing, I do not dispute that. She is not my cup of tea, but the lady was quite a singer.
Trey
Trey
She might be quite a singer but she has not yet figured out when she should keep her damn mouth shut!
Aurelian, do they ever figure that out? Look at the Dixie Chicks, a band I enjoy, and how their panties got all in a wad when people did not like what they said about Bush! Free speech is great for them, but for us, nah!
I expect artists to be idiots in general and big idiots when it comes to politics, so it does not upset me. And so far, there is precious little evidence to make me think otherwise.
Trey
This brings to mind a quote from Alice Cooper:
"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."
I love Alice. I did not know he was so smart though.
Trey
Actually, Babs can *sing* better than any of us. That's why she's smarter.
Actually, Babs can *sing* better than any of us. That's why she's smarter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
*Actually, Babs can *sing* better than any of us.*
***********************
Actually, singing is a matter of taste.
The reality is that her singing appeals to 40+ Jewish broads. And they've got the money. From their Jewish husbands. Her singing is like Buttah.
*That's why she's smarter.*
******************************
Yeah, that follows logically.
Do you believe that yourself?
-------
In general: I think it's hilarious that Helen proclaimed she was not jealous of rich people on the other thread, and people should quit emoting and start making some bucks, and the usual suspects went along with it. The hidden implication, of course, is that people with money didn't get it UNFAIRLY. Then there would be a reason to emote, just as in the case of injustices against women (feminism) or men (MRAs).
But then, on this thread, she presents a classic case of a dipshit who is not smart at all.
And the usual suspects then do a 180 and agree that a rich person is a stupid dipshit.
12:53 PM, September 17, 2010
Well, for one thing: Now they're the 'Obama Tax Cuts'
...and the lies get bigger...
And at least Babs earned her money through her own work or creativity.
If you think that applies to every "rich" person, you are absolutely nuts. Heather Mills and Mel Gibson's ex-honey (the Russian one) are a couple of examples. No one ever seems to include them in discussions of "the rich".
Tether, Babs sold more records than you ever will. 8)
Trey
Your point is well taken, among the working poor and poor, extending the Bush tax cuts really doesn't help them much.
If the Bush tax cut is extended, a person in the top 1% of income earners would gain on average $72,446 per year. An income earner in the middle 20% of incomes would gain $1,016/yr. And those individuals and families in the bottom 20% would gain $69/yr from an extension of the Bush tax cut.
A top earner indeed benefits many fold more from an extension of the Bush tax cut, but perhaps we should look at other policies like dramatically increasing the personal exemption or expanding the earned income tax credit to better target the tax cut to help the working poor and middle class.
Eric,
I may be wrong on this, but what are being considered the "rich" are those making over 250k. That encompasses a great number of small business owners, who are the people who employ the most people in this country. It isn't going to just work for the top 1%. This will have an effect on those in the middle and lower brackets, as a lot of jobs will be cut.
And right now, that is the last thing this country needs.
Eric, how about massive spending cuts too? Jobs will come back by a more friendly economic climate, lower taxes, and vastly reduced spending. We should start with limiting unemployment, disability, and welfare benefits. Stopping the subsidy of single moms would be a HUGE help to the economy, the culture, and families. There is a LOT to be done.
Trey
E. Steven Berkimer, I think the top 1% is about $600,000+, but your point is taken. I agree that jobs is key.
However, I haven't seen any evidence that keeping the very high income earner's income taxes low produces more jobs. This lower income tax is the reality now and we have high unemployment. The entrepreneurs I know say that the difficulty to get credit and consumer spending/confidence are their most limiting factors... but then again the small business people I know are not earning over $250,000. And, of course, the other issue on taxes is at some point we have to stop borrowing to pay for our public infrastructure, military, health and human services, and other government services.
Again, your focus on jobs is I believe correct. During the last decade middle class jobs have flat-lined. Most economists agree that the economy grows when the less wealthy have more money. When they are out there spending, small businesses can thrive.
BTW, my source for the tax cut statistics is the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/comparing-the-tax-plans/?wpisrc=nl_natlalert . I include this because I like that it breaks things into groupings, but I recognize the complexity of the data. I figure the people reading this thread might see things I don't.
Trey,
You are right to connect tax cuts to spending issues. I wish we could reconnect the two rather than have this fantasy that tax cuts have no impact on the federal budget.
The Congressional Budget Office projects the current law annual deficit (without the cuts you suggest) will be $685 billion in year 2020. If the Bush tax cuts are extended this will add another $500 billion to the annual deficit increasing it to about $1.2 trillion/year.
So we need to find $1.2 trillion in annual savings. It will take a lot more cutting than welfare to accomplish this. Or it will take another revenue stream. Or both.
i think babs got rich by a number of means, including, copyright protection, hard work, ignoring critics, good agents, lawyers, producers, and an audience of the same people who bring hostile little dogs into restaurants.
her hard work and focus and good choices in business partners has no real bearing on the fact that, as trey pointed out, she has metal health issues, probably borderline personality disorder and probably has the temper of a putbull.
which is why she takes on the ideology of the socialist elites.
Post a Comment
<< Home