Marie Cocco Is Wrong!
September 18th 2008 19:50
In today's Oregonian, Marie Cocco spreads her nonsense in a column titled "Flying blind into financial uncertainty."
Cocco, a Washington Post columnist, quotes Alan Greespan's thinking that this financial crisis could be the "worst of the worst." Cocco hopes not, for that
First of all, the tax cuts had nothing to do with the failure of Bear Sterns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros., Merrill Lynch, AIG P, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, Ciountrywide, and Wamu.
Second, based on the latest IRS data, the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history. Not only that but the top 50% of income earners in the U.S. make 88% of the income, yet pay 97% of the taxes. That means the bottom 50% only pay 3% of the taxes.
Of course, we could go to another system, in which the popular slogan is From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs).
How does it work in practice? Suppose Carl, your next door neighbor makes $300,000 and you and your wife have a combined $50,000 income. You decide you need a college education for your child, or you need health care and can afford neither. What you do is go to your Congressman and ask him to force Carl and anyone like Carl to buy it for you. You can't go over to Carl's house with a gun and rob Carl. That's illegal, but the government at your behest can. They can force Carl and people like him to do so. Is that what you want?
I've about had it with those that think big giovernment is the answer to all our problems when it was government and socialism that got us into the " worst of the worst" financial disasters. Nationalization of an industry is just another way to force the taxpayer to cough up nore money for some dubious scheme.
Cocco, a Washington Post columnist, quotes Alan Greespan's thinking that this financial crisis could be the "worst of the worst." Cocco hopes not, for that
"would mean that millions of Americans would become homeless, starving and so desperate for help that - gasp!- we might need a new New Deal, And we can't afford a new |New Deal in good part because Greenspan in 2001 gave his approval to President Bush's signature tax cuts. Enactment of these tax cuts was an early marker on the road to the great unraveling.'
Second, based on the latest IRS data, the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history. Not only that but the top 50% of income earners in the U.S. make 88% of the income, yet pay 97% of the taxes. That means the bottom 50% only pay 3% of the taxes.
Of course, we could go to another system, in which the popular slogan is From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs).
That's a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of their ability and consume from society in proportion to their needs, regardless of how much they have contributed.
I've about had it with those that think big giovernment is the answer to all our problems when it was government and socialism that got us into the " worst of the worst" financial disasters. Nationalization of an industry is just another way to force the taxpayer to cough up nore money for some dubious scheme.
| 42 |
| Vote |
