OK, SUPER DUPER!! So go start some charities and such so that you and the other folks that comprise “We” can reduce the number of those who slip through the cracks to as small a number as possible.
But what percentage of the over all tax do they pay? What percentage did they pay in '78? How much total income did the government bring in during the '70’s (in adjusted dollars) compared to today (in adjusted dollars)? Tossing out this little jewel is really irrelevant (which is probably why Huffington did so, ehe?) without some context to go with it.
(As a hint, and from memory, the top 1% payed about 16-20% of the tax burden in the 70’s…and it was over 40% the last time I looked. It went down in 2001 to something like 31-33% IIRC, but has steadily been climbing back up since then. And the total amount of dollars collected today is a lot more than that collected in the 70’s, even adjusting for inflation and population growth)
Anyway, why the idea that fiscal conservatives hate poor people? As other have said, it has to do with the debate between whether the government should handle something or that it should be handled in the private sector. And, frankly, it has a lot to do with people who don’t really understand how the economy works, or understand how industry works, and who want to institute ‘fairness’ and ‘what’s right’ without understanding the principle of unintended consequences. I think that most (rational) liberals DO understand that they can’t simply soak the rich and that this will magically solve all our problems, or make things more ‘fair’. Unfortunately, the less rational and less knowledgeable types revert to the standard rhetoric that they have been spouting for the last 50 years or so about class warfare and soaking the rich (or capping their salaries, seizing the ‘means of production’ or any number of other loony ideas). For these kinds the very idea of fiscal conservatism equates directly to the proponents hating the poor.
And, of course, to be fair there ARE conservatives who DO hate the poor, and who have always been in favor of using the government to give advantage to their own pet corporations for a variety of reasons. Liberals don’t have any kind of lock on stupid ideas or wrong headed use of power…in fact, I’d have to say that on the whole, ‘conservatives’ seem to be edging them out lately in both categories, something I wouldn’t have believed a decade ago. I don’t think most FISCAL conservatives are like that, but I think that fiscal conservatives are in the minority of the ‘conservative’ category these days…and, to be honest, I’m probably biased, since I consider myself a ‘fiscal conservative’. 
-XT
Actually, the government becomes the most powerful PAWN of big businesses and cartels.
I object to the term “fiscal conservative”. It’s loaded. The American conservative movement is anything but responsible with public money. They borrow and spend and give tax cuts to the wealthy and always, always, always run up deficits that historically eclipse all past deficits. This has been true since Reagan gained office and ever since. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
It conflates the old fashioned use of frugal and conservative with right wing politics.
I think that the OP is talking about government frugality being a good thing. But when most government programs directed at providing stability or outright aid to poor people are always the first candidates for cutting, and wars that benefit only the rich (Iraq) are given a complete pass at budget cutting time, it is apparent that cost cutting is not something applied to the interests of the rich, but only the poor. Every other country in the world manages to stay safe without two oceans and only a fraction of the spending on the military that we have. Every other country.
And the rhetoric from the same people right wingers always manages to create code words “welfare queen” and “inner city” to apply to poor minority groups during campaigns, use the Southern Strategy to divide along racial lines, comes off as anti-minority and anti-poor.
Add in all the idiocy about Obama, a once poor American child and now rich American adult having been a foreign born Muslim Manchurrian socialist terrorist etc. and you get a sense that he is opposed in part because he was poor and black, not just because he was black.
Add in that these same politicians always oppose a minimum wage increase and in fact oppose a minimum wage entirely and oppose social security and health care reform and everything else that might assist poor people, you’ve got to wonder why the OP is even asking this question. It should be self evident that the right wing, by laying down with all the flea bitten dogs it has over the past 100 years since Teddy was their last President who did not appear to ignore the concerns of poor people, in fact is at very best utterly indifferent to the interests of poor people. When it is considered that “trickle down” economics never trickled down in terms of real wage and benefit increases, is it any wonder that the people who want tax cuts for the rich only are really engaged in “piss on the poor” economics.
Now the OP also uses the loaded term “hate”. Well, indifference to the poor by the right wing is fairly well established. Leave 'em alone is what the rich recommend for the poor and claim that it is the most fervent desire of the poor to not have help. But all the screwing over the past 100 years really does amount to characterizing the right wing policies towards the poor as hate, loathing, fear and contempt. I would respectfully suggest that the OP’s own posting history shows a consistent, deep and bitter contempt towards those not as fortunate has him.
The right wing has over the last century chosen to champion in interests of the very rich with great vigor and consistency. This has been at the expense of the poor. If one were to look at headlines and stories of policy positions over 100 years of the right wing, the right wing would have insurmountable evidence that it was consistently a vigorous political enemy of poor people. This evidence would span every area of policy and every season of every of the past 100 years. Most people do not view history that way. The see maybe the last political season or two and maybe up to five. I’ve studied a long history of attempt sat killing social security, medicare, minimum wage increases, safety laws, consumer laws, etc. Republicans are the political champions of the very wealthy and the political opponents of poor people’s interests.
In fact, unless one is actually trying to throw dust in people’s eyes, hate is an entirely fair way to describe the consistent history of opposition to the betterment of poor people. The claim that poverty will get better if only we don’t do anything has been disproven by the history of civilization. Most of human history is without any consideration of the conditions of poor people. Only in the past few hundred years have such efforts been made. Those efforts have not eliminated poverty, but have in fact made great strides: universal public education, public roads, public libraries, etc.
Fair enough. By this standard, I am still moderately fiscal-conservative (in a modified Keynesian way). But I gave up on the anti-welfare-state sort of thing.
Howzabout since we’re already here we take this one?
Eh, I actually agree with your friend there. Credit counselors will warn you to stay away from such places. I’d like to think you have a point for individuals in an emergency, but too many people use them all the time & end up paying their creditors simply outrageous amounts–whereas if they were rich they’d be able to lend money themselves.
This is disgustingly common. And then they elect legislators that shoot not only themselves but all of us in the collective foot.
When “conservative” pols try to save us money short-term, we all end up paying for it long-term. Ostensible free-market conservatives capped medical education funding in 1996, fearing a “glut.” Guess what’s happened to the price of med school & the price of hiring a doctor?
Oooh, you are taking the “sheeple” idea to a whole new level, here. Shgovernment? Oooh, I got it, Push-over-nment!!
For people who keep saying GDP is not finite, why? The GDP right now is about 14 trillion. Does that mean it was 14 trillion 10 years ago, or that it’ll be 14 trillion in 2030? No.
However, as of 2010, GDP is about 14 trillion.
Back in 1980 GDP was about 5 trillion after adjusting for inflation. By 2030 it’ll probably be closer to 25 trillion.
For people who say ‘you just have to increase the pie’ the point I am making is that we have been increasing the pie. Its just that 90% of the gains are going to the wealthiest 10% of the population. As a result for most people the pie isn’t growing. Their expenses are growing but income is not.
You can’t have a system where all the economic benefit goes to the top while their taxes are cut. If you do that you run long term deficits and everyone struggles economically. That is what our society has turned into. We are a debtor nation full of personal and public bankruptcies.
As long as our economic and taxation system is designed to give most of the benefits to the top 10%, our system will come closer and closer to collapse.
For people who keep saying GDP is not finite, why? The GDP right now is about 14 trillion. Does that mean it was 14 trillion 10 years ago, or that it’ll be 14 trillion in 2030? No.
However, as of 2010, GDP is about 14 trillion.
Back in 1980 GDP was about 5 trillion after adjusting for inflation. By 2030 it’ll probably be closer to 25 trillion.
For people who say ‘you just have to increase the pie’ the point I am making is that we have been increasing the pie. Its just that 90% of the gains are going to the wealthiest 10% of the population. As a result for most people the pie isn’t growing. Their expenses are growing but income is not.
You can’t have a system where all the economic benefit goes to the top while their taxes are cut. If you do that you run long term deficits and everyone struggles economically. That is what our society has turned into. We are a debtor nation full of personal and public bankruptcies.
As long as our economic and taxation system is designed to give most of the benefits to the top 10%, our system will come closer and closer to collapse.
No; again, it is over whether the government is going to handle something, or whether it won’t be handled at all. Government has had to step in again and again throughout history specifically because without the government, much of what needs to be or should be done simply won’t happen. The people who claim that the private sector will - after literally millennia of history of failing to do so - step forward and solve problems they’ve never showed the ability or interest in solving before are either deluding themselves or lying.
Even without getting into crackpot conspiracy theories, it seems fairly obvious that the whole wold is transitioning to a power base of corporations.
2000 years ago, might & muscle held power – military generals and conquerors
500 years ago, the church was top dog
200 years ago, you have various revolutions and formations of idealistic governments
today… you have governments that are proxies for corporations.
So yes, if we give up more of our taxes to the government and make it larger and larger, it creates a wonderful sitting duck for corporations to channel their agendas.
Sorry for the tangent.
I think this sort of response is the reason why people think you hate poor people. You can pick up plenty of history books for the Pre-WWII period and find plenty of instances where private charity was completely overwhelmed in the face of any number of issues (from mild to severe). I’m currently reading the book, the “Worst Hard Time,” which is about the Dust Bowl, and there are several pages that deal with the Red Cross’s valiant but ineffective attempts to deal with the crisis.
Now, that doesn’t mean that private charity cannot play an effective role (although in the US, private charity is subsidized by the government to a certain extent). But it does mean that glib responses such as telling people to leave their justifiable concerns solely to private charity show a complete indifference to the issues of when and how private charity can be effective and when and how it can fail to be effective. And since you are unwilling to analyze when and how private charity can be effective, I’m left to think that you simply don’t care about the concern expressed.
Now, I personally wouldn’t characterize that necessarily as hatred. But, to me, it comes off as indifference.
A lot of fiscal conservatives seem to assume it is, though. “We can’t afford to give poor people money!” I suppose that makes sense if they’re actually concerned about the limited resources money can buy. But then they’d have to admit they’re against poor people getting shelter, land, food, or medical care. Well, maybe those are limited. But money, education, status as respectable citizens, those are reasonably expandable supplies. And somehow it seems some people really don’t want** those** spread around. Perhaps the psychology of a chimpanzee who wants to keep status & privilege in one’s own beloved group?
So, it’s math then? That might persuade some of the fiscal cons. It’s not “feelings”, it’s math! The ones who aren’t persuaded are perhaps too steered by their own feelings, of something.
I used to think I was a fiscal conservative. I used to think it was about balanced budgets. Turns out that’s not what it meant.
Are those factors measurable? You sound here like they’re a giant mystery & vary wildly year to year. That’s hardly the case.
This is true. You have lowered the amount they paid someone else, but you still have the money. The money supply is unchanged, but you have increased its velocity, thus growing the economy. Yet somehow when the gov’t does this through redistribution, it’s accused of shrinking the economy, slowing the economy, & taking something away.
Obviously it is better to think your actions matter. That is why liberals support funding programs that will help people have a stronger chance. Social mobility is higher in Scandanavia than in the US, probably because Scandanavian society invests more heavily in creating a system where individual initiative to move up the socioeconomic ladder pays off. The chances of moving up the socioeconomic ladder is better in Finland, Norway & Sweden than the US.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/338
By supporting libertarian economics, this leaves wealthy, powerful interests free to rig the game to their benefit. You can play by the rules, do everything right, etc. but if you get sick there is nothing stopping your health insurance company from denying you coverage on a technicality and causing you to go bankrupt.
So yes, liberals do believe that individual initiative matters. But we also are aware of concepts like learned helplessness. And the more roadblocks you set up by allowing the wealthy and powerful to rig the system to their benefit (by not letting the government intervene to regulate these interests), the less individual initiative pays off.
If the private sector doesn’t want a “problem” to be “solved,” isn’t that a fairly good indication that it isn’t a problem in the first place?
This is one reason why private sector solutions are better–voting with dollars is better than voting with, well, votes. If people don’t give money to the charity that will stop the aliens from invading people’s brains, then that’s a good indication that people think that charity is full of shit.
What about “conservatives” who want to **change **back to the “good old days” before Civil Rights & redistribution? I call them “regressives.”
Let me make this easy for you. If I perform a service for someone and they pay me for it, did the GDP go up or down or stay the same measured before and after I performed the service?
Nonsense. It just means that the wealthy don’t find solving it profitable.
Since that gives wealthy people all the power, of course you think that. Ultimately, libertarianism/Randism is just neo-feudalism. Lords and serfs.
Well, in an ideal libertarian world then labor would be perfectly free to organize into things like unions to collectively bargain from a position of strength. As to health care, since the government wouldn’t be sticking their thumbs in, people could pool together as well into customer bases to collectively bargain for better rates and conditions.
You can’t really equate the current muddled up system with any one type (i.e. free market, government controlled, etc), nor can you look at the current system and simply extrapolate what it would be like under either a UHC, free market approach or under ‘libertarian economics’. It’s a muddle, a worst of all worlds system, neither fish nor fowl.
-XT
Use of the term “sheeple” by self-righteous libertarians–excuse me, Objectivists–is a wonderful example of why people don’t like you (the plural you; people such as you). Also consistent with the description of Just World Fallacy, which you seem to have completely missed & misunderstood.
This is very much “smaller is better” libertarian conspiracy theory.
But tell me, who is more able to negotiate higher wages against a megacorp? One man, three men, or a labor union?
So then. Who will stand against the big corporations, if not a government rooted in the ballot & the will of the people? The Left prize the power of the ballot as a check on the power of the wallet.
In your small government world, where is the power of the ballot, & what stops the power of the wallet from slowly taking as much over as possible? If you have a workable approach, I as a former anarchist would like to hear it.
No. Just World Fallacy. Again.
Of course they think it’s full of shit. But that doesn’t mean the aliens aren’t invading people’s brains. But if SG-1 can stop them with government money, it doesn’t matter so much that almost no one knows or believes the aliens are real & invading brains.
For “aliens invading brains” you may read “germ theory of disease” or what have you.
Federal income tax revenue is about 1.1 trillion, with the wealthiest 1% paying about 40% and the top 5% paying 60%.
The federal revenues in 2010 were about 2.4 trillion, with about $450 billion in income taxes from the top 1%. Add in estate and their share of payroll taxes (which for SS are capped at about 102k, and I’m going to guess add up to about $200 billion a year) and the wealthiest pay about 1/4 of federal taxes.
Then there are corporate taxes of about 200-300 billion. However corporate profits tripled from 1999-today from about 500 billion to 1.4 trillion.
http://www.publicagenda.org/files/charts/ff_economy_corporate_profits.png
Federal income tax rates were cut in half since the 70s. Top rates were about 70% in 78, now they are about 35%.
So corporate profits tripled in 10 years. Plus almost all the economic gains went to the top 5% while their income tax rate was cut in half (dividend and capital gains rates were cut in half too).
You seem to be arguing anyone who isn’t a conservative on economics isn’t rational or informed. That is your argument.
Barack Obama won support from 66% of economists (vs 28% for McCain) in a poll of 523 of them. So you’d better wrangle up the vast majority of economists and tell them that they are all irrational and uninformed about economics.
Obama ran on a policy of raising taxes on the wealthy and giving tax cuts to the working/middle class.
He wanted to institute a 4% social security tax on incomes above 200k
He wants to end the Bush tax cuts on income above 250k
He wants to uphold the estate tax
The point is, it is possible to disagree with conservative economics and not do it due to character flaws (ignorance, naivety, etc). You are making the same logical fallacy the OP was upset about, the assumption that you can’t disagree w/o it being due to a character flaw.
The economy only started giving all the tax benefits and income gains to the wealthy around the 1980s, when movement conservatism took over.
There are 2 things conservatives have convinced themselves they have a monopoly on. National defense and economics. However the last 10 years should have totally deflated that assumption since they have proven the opposite.