Skip to main content

Should the Rich Pay More in Taxes?

Larry Elder, writing in Town Hall Magazine noted a 2008 poll given by the Investor’s Business Daily that sought to find out what most people think the rich pay in taxes. The findings were that most people believe the rich pay contribute approximately 20 percent of all federal income taxes. This is far, far less than what the rich pay. An informal poll was taken by a US News and World report Blogger of 24 DNC delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in 2008. A question poised was, “what do you think the rich should pay in income taxes”, the average response was that they should pay about 25 percent. Strangely the fact is that the rich pay a lot more than this in tax rates and as a percentage of total tax revenues.

The fact is nearly 50 percent of all Americans pay no federal income tax at all while the top 25 percent of wage earners pay about 85 percent of all federal income taxes and that doesn’t include government perks such as earned income credits, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, and a host of other government programs.

Percentage of tax revenue according to income

Percentage of tax revenue according to income

Moral Questions About Tax Policy

There are a number of moral questions about taxing policy that few people consider.

Question 1: Is it moral for those who pay no taxes to vote on how much to tax those who are required to pay tax?

Question 2: Walter Williams writing for Townhall magazine asked if it is it morally right for one American to live at the expense of another American. More specifically should taxpayers be forced to pay for handouts, to banks, auto companies, college students, the poor and countless other special interests?

Question 3: In a free country, is it morally right to tax someone at a higher tax rate than someone else? Not only do the rich pay more taxes but at a higher tax rate. Even the Old Testament tithe was a flat tax, 10% for everyone!

Question 4: Because the government has imposed a high tax rate, less is available to give charitably give to those in need, this includes family members.

Question 5: Walter Williams writing for Town Hall magazine asked if it is morally right to force others to give their rightfully earned money to others or other purposes not specified in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.

What do We Want to Reward?

The wealthy in this country for the most part have gained their wealth through providing something of value to others. Their contributions have created opportunities for others, we should be grateful to these people and strive to do what they’ve done and not penalize them for their achievements.

Most of us desire to help the poor and destitute but will acknowledge that rewarding dysfunctional behavior is not helping but enabling many to remain as they are. Many poor people have poor values, bad attitudes, irresponsible habits and various addictions. Local, private charities are often much better suited than government programs to evaluate the needs of poor and destitute and help these people. Government programs on a whole have just increased the cycle of dependency and rewarded poor behavior.

 The religious vs. the secular. The religious give and volunteer more.

The religious vs. the secular. The religious give and volunteer more.

Conservatives vs. Liberals! The more liberal  the less charitable, the more conservative the more charitable.

Conservatives vs. Liberals! The more liberal the less charitable, the more conservative the more charitable.

Liberal Hypocrisy 101

Columnist Larry Elder writing for Townhall magazine noted that President Obama called charitable giving and higher taxes a matter of “neighborliness” and that Vice President Biden said it was a matter of “patriotism”. Yet their charitable giving until recently has been below what even the average America gives.

Scroll to Continue

Elder notes that in 2007 greedy and evil George Bush and his wife gave 18% of their income to charity, while president Obama gave 5% to charity in 2007. Elder goes to say that between 2000 and 2004, the Obama’s gave less than 1% of their income to charity while earning between 200,000-300,000 dollars per year, while the average American gives about double that percentage in charities. Elder noted in 2007 the Biden’s gave 0.3% of their income to charity and from 1997-2007 the Biden’s charitable giving has averaged about 1% of their income. Do you think there might be a little phoniness going on here?

It should be noted that federal income tax often hinders those are trying to become successful not the wealthy themselves. Often rich liberals are living in the lap of luxury while preventing others from advancing up the economic ladder and challenging their success? How do they do this? The answer is by punishing the wealth creators with high taxes and burdensome regulations to make sure that they maintain their own monopoly. Oh did I mention that according to statistics the average liberal household is wealthier than the average conservative household, but that the average conservative gives 30% more to charity.

So what do you think, should we increase taxes on the rich, what if you wanted to become wealthy would you feel the same way? Should the rich pay more than 35% of their income in taxes while nearly half of America pays no income tax at all? Isn’t being forced to pay to benefit someone else a form of servitude or slavery? What about the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, how is it that the government can pick the pockets of one citizen to buy the vote of another citizen?


Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 20, 2018:

This comment is from twitter:

Mark Zuckerberg is not a genius. Elon Musk is not a genius. Jack Dorsey is not a genius. These people will not fix society. They are good at one thing. They are not leaders. They don’t understand social issues. They are not big thinkers. They struck gold once. Enough.

What will it take to deal with the failure of Reaganomics! Opposite of what FDR did, which was to spend like crazy & then he taxed like crazy to compensate. Reagan cut taxes like crazy, but then spent & set the stage to deregulate like crazy to undermine an effect government.

The effect was 13 US billionaires in 1980 & 540+ US billionaires now. 147 billionaires around the world in 1987 & 2100+ billionaires now. A National Debt that was well on it's to being paid down that was at $4,000,000,000.00 in 1980 & is some $20,000,000,000.00+ now.

Eventual they got rid of Glass-Steagell so that the stock market, banks & investment banks could push de-regulation to an extreme & take the life savings, investments & homes of hard working Americans to pad their already enormously padded pockets.

At the same time creating an atmosphere of corporate manipulation & abuses by getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine to undermine an honest & important responsibility to inform the people factually. Then a massive corporate take over of media outlets designed to control what information was shared & in what form it would be shared.

Hence an atmosphere where the "Consent of the governed" is no where to be found. In others words, a house divided against itself can & is being manipulated.

These people know the infrastructure is at risk, but as with the climate (the single most important natural infrastructure on the planet) dealing with it cuts into badly needed profits. As if that was the real issue.

Competition has long been considered the most effective means of dealing with the issues facing Americans in the 21st century. Bold talk without results. Conservative Free Market Ideology is an aggressive & well manipulated sham.

Conservative Corporate Extremists & 21st century Evangelicals have aggressively pushed the National Debt to the point of braking. They want control of all the money & have yet to demonstrate that the will of the people has anything to do with it.

The need is to change the conditions on how, where & why the government's money is spent & on whom. Separating corporate & state to get the concept of privatization out of government civic responsibilities to include education, healthcare, infrastructure, military, the justice system, the energy sector, & anywhere the environment exists to manipulate & control the economy for the sake of profits that continues to come at the expense of everyone & now especially the planet.

This latest round of taxes cuts & spending is by design meant to force a push come to shove situation where the Social Safety Net is expendable to salvage the extremes created by pushing the National Debt too high. This is by design.

My suggestion is simple. 2100 billionaires & the 30+ million millionaires around the world who have been the beneficiary of the abuses associated with Reaganomics should be required to pay off the National Debt of every country around the world.

To make the necessary adjustments to the economies of the world to do the following: All civic responsibilities supported to include a warm belly & a dry warm place to sleep for every single person on the planet.

You helped trash the environment of the planet to include the climate. You should pay to fix it without compromising your responsibility to the people of the world.

My belief is very simple. When the Bible speaks about dominion over the creatures & plant life of the Earth Man was designated a caretaker & not an overlord or warlord!

Sanxuary on July 19, 2018:

What percentage of the wealth is where? We are continuing to go a trillion in debt each year and its 30 what trillion in debt? The choice is taxes and why do we not pay people more so they can live and pay more taxes? Maybe we can bail the rich out again when the economy crashes.

JON EWALL from usa on October 19, 2017:


wake up america government wast more of taxpayer money without fear of bankruptcy

2010-2017 Obamacare FRAUD … Obama Dems lied MSM cover up a violation … America wake up truth

Senator Schumer WTP watching ‘’VOTING record’’ if you deserve another term in 2018 see big story vote

Find voting records of House and Senate members D’s vote NAY obstruct fix big story

3/26/10 Senators and House Members can Keep Campaign Funds on the way out $$$$

9/27/17 The Cost of illegal immigration is at a record high-here are the numbers you need to know BIG Story $134.8 BILLION / YR

Coburn exposes $9 Trillion WASTE in gov agencies BO Reid talk

jobs Pay Go law

Pay Go Act of 2010

to be continued

cataluna on October 18, 2017:

You're right, we should impose crippling taxes on the poor. After all, that'll disincentivise being poor.

JON EWALL from usa on October 14, 2015:


Why are some people rich? Why are some poor ? Some where between the two is the middle class, so-called.

6/14/15 The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the POOR in America

8/13/10 USA Today federal workers earning double their private counterparts

3/3/15 Proof that rich pay more than their fair share of taxes 1/02/14

Last but not least is the Government, who is and who is the fourth party involved in the above ( regulation and taxation) 7/21/11 Senator Coburn exposes $9 Trillion WASTE in Gov agencies 2010 Pa y Go law

I do concede there is more to the story.

Dan Harmon from Boise, Idaho on October 14, 2015:

No, it's not "fair" for some to pay more, regardless of their wealth.

But it IS necessary. The very poor can pay nothing and still survive. And even if the percentage rates were set all the same, those in the middle could not reasonably survive, either. Not only do the rich have to pay more, they must pay a higher percentage of their income just to maintain the country.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on August 19, 2013:

The tax cuts that came during the Reagan White House were coupled with some of the most aggressive spending since the FDR Administration. The fundamental difference between the two administrations, is that FDR spent but taxed heavily to compensate for the spending. The issues at the time warranted the spending.

The reality is that New Deal policies had established an effective balance between corporations and wage earners to the point that when Reagan took office the Middle Class was the most powerful majority of the population in all of history.

The issue for me is that Reagan and both Bush Administrations spent aggressively, but didn't couple that spending with appropriate taxes to compensate. While this spending spree effectively put the Soviet Union out of business it has also stripped the federal government of the means to pay it's own bills. With the exception of course of those corporations who have deeply entrenched themselves into the military. In the form of privatizing major portions of the logistical support structure of the Military. Eisenhower's Military-Industrial-Complex. I was raised a military brat. I was born during the Eisenhower Administration. I have witnessed the changes.

Corporate America through aggressive lobby efforts has more control over political and legislative policy now than it ever has before.

Watergate was the last time the 4th estate had the ability to operate as an independent information service to the people. Reagan policy changed all that. By the time Iran-Contra becomes a news story, Oliver North is an American Hero and the whole episode is nothing but a dog and pony show designed to entertain. The guy who brought the story to the country, was aggressively ridiculed by corporate media, and eventually committed suicide.

It is my belief that pardoning Nixon whether by design or not, kept the American People from learning the truth about what was behind the events that lead up his resignation. (author) from upstate, NY on August 19, 2013:


It doesn’t seem like we agree on much!

You said-

“With the last of the Great Reagan Tax reform actions has come the ability of Corporations to bankrupt local, state, and federal budgets.”

Isn't this turning logic on its head? Bankruptcy is a result of not being able to live within your means. Is it really your position that corporations are responsible for the government’s budget? Government at all levels are spending record amounts of money, bankruptcy is the result of a spending problem not a revenue problem.

“The idea that during the Watergate era, only 3% of Congress as a whole would move on to corporate lobbies and now that figure is 42% for house members and 50% for senators, should tell you who controls both liberal and conservative media and why. To keep average Americans divided against each other, and keep corporate America out of the reach of Constitutional amendments that would force them to clean up their act.”

Did you mean to say who controls government or who controls the media? The fact that members of Congress move on to corporate lobbies doesn’t mean the corporations control the media or the government.

The problem of the collusion of government and corporations are primarily the result of government intervention in the private sector. While it is true that corporations can and are often a corrupting influence to government, it’s also true that government has a lot more real power than corporations.

The idea of a cabal of elite corporate bigwigs controlling America, I believe is misguided. Corporate power is divided up into millions of shareholders. They can only exist by pleasing the public. If you go back even 10 years you’ll notice that top corporations in America have changed? The interests of America’s corporations vary a lot, what is an advantage to one corporation is a detriment to another. The corporate contributions to political causes are largely defensive in nature. In other words, their hoping the government won’t destroy their business.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on August 07, 2013:

This makes my point better than I can make it myself.

Don't Mess with Taxes

Episode #18138

The United States tax code hasn't been addressed in any significant way since the days when Boy George could guest star on "The A-Team." (03:42)

Tags: taxes, government, Boy George, 80s, business, economy, poop & pee, laws, John Oliver, holidays, supernatural

Aired: 08/06/13Viewed: 26,311

Full Episode AvailableAugust 6, 2013 - Liam Hemsworth

1. I showed a graph that spelled out how corporations are having some of their greatest profits of all time while the American Wager earner is earning the lowest wages at the same time.

Source: eclectablog Progressive News and Commentary December 4, 2012.

A Comparison of Corporate Profits and Wages Over the Last 70 Years

These two websites make it clear. Since 1986, with the last of the Great Reagan Tax reform actions has come the ability of Corporations to bankrupt local, state, and federal budgets. Taking from them what they can use to profit from, and slowly preventing the government from being able to do it's job. Which is to maintain and protect the American People from corporate abuses. It goes back to Teddy Roosevelt and trust busting.

2. The idea that during the Watergate era, only 3% of Congress as a whole would move on to corporate lobbies and now that figure is 42% for house members and 50% for senators, should tell you who controls both liberal and conservative media and why. To keep average Americans divided against each other, and keep corporate America out of the reach of Constitutional amendments that would force them to clean up their act.

3. The latest Supreme Court decision which has struck down some of the most important provisions of the laws protecting against disenfranchisement should scare you too. That discussion can be found in another episode of the Daily Show in the last couple of days.

4. Last of all the idea that Congress would allow itself to attach secrecy to tax negotiations to protect their jobs, is not only unconstitutional, it's un-American. This should tell you who holds the purse-strings in Washington.

JON EWALL from usa on August 06, 2013:


Yes, they should pay more and they do.

Let's not forget 4 years ago Wake up America,

Barak Obama Campaign Promises



Senator Coburn reports $9 TRILLION of waste in government agencies sequestration REALLY

2/25/13 Sequester - The Three Things you need to know

President Obama Proposed the Sequester

Senator questions $18B for job training WASTE


Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts Obama and Geither KNOWS

Government projects to make $50B in student loan profit

Stimulus Spending Was Wasted Money $825 BILLION

GOVERNMENT WASTE, the past 5 years, the Social Security Trust fund has paid $400 billion to dead federal employees FEDERAL EMPLOYEES BEHIND ON TAXES

As of Sept,2011, 107,658 federal employees owed $1.01 billion federal taxes

2012 $3.5 billion


Inspector General finds $ 13.6 billion in IRS improper payments , 21 to 25%, to low- income taxpayers through its Earned Income Tax Credit Program in fiscal 2012. In 2011 , 21 to 26 % were improper

THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.waste and wasteful spending.The administration is unable to do the job even while controlling 2/3s of the government since 2007.

teamrn from Chicago on August 06, 2013:

Left leaning media, or functions of central bank or existence of NWO aside, the central question remains, SHOULD THE RICH PAY MORE IN TAXES? I take my leave, cause we're not answering that. Everything but!

JON EWALL from usa on August 05, 2013:

The mainstream media is biased so much to the left, it is evident that the reporting is distorted against the right in every report. (author) from upstate, NY on August 05, 2013:

Jon- If all this is true about the FED, I guess Ron Paul deserves a lot of credit. If its confirmed that our government is giving or loaning trillions to corporations and foreign banks, maybe the public will finally wake up and take our country back from these government crooks! (author) from upstate, NY on August 05, 2013:

Arthur- While it’s true that corporations own the media, it’s also true that that those employed in the media industry are overwhelmingly liberal. Major research findings over many years have confirmed this to be true. It’s also a fact that the majority of media personnel don’t take their orders from top corporate executives. So even if the executives were conservative it wouldn’t affect the way the news is reported.

Studies have also confirmed a strong liberal bias in the way news stories are presented. Gallop polls found that the general population sees the media as too liberal by a margin of 3 to 1. Numerous high profile journalists have freely admitted to a liberal media bias.

JON EWALL from usa on August 03, 2013:




Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts Obama and Geither KNOWS TRANSPARENCY

teamrn from Chicago on August 03, 2013:

Nice factoid, Arthur. But, with all due respect, what does this have to do with the rich paying more in taxes?

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on August 02, 2013:

On the list of the wealthiest people in the world for 2013...number 6 twice or number 6 and 7 respectively considering what specific list you use...are the Koch Brothers.

As for who dominates media...corporations own dominate and control media, all media. (author) from upstate, NY on August 02, 2013:

Arthur Bundy-

This post is a response to your post made almost 2 weeks ago.

“With the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act the Koch Brothers made millions on manipulating oil speculation.”

Koch industries are relativity minor players in the oil futures trading industry, if compared to say Goldman-Sachs. If anything, Goldman-Sachs should be in the spotlight, only they happen to be large donors to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

To demonstrate how large and competitive the oil industry is, Exxon mobile is only ranks 14th among those in the oil business; Koch industries are hardly in a position to manipulate anything.

“They (The Koch brothers) have supplied (Grover) Norquist with millions to pursue low taxes.”

Given the lefts near complete dominance in academia and the media, that you would consider the media influence of the Koch brothers a major threat seems incredible. And it’s hard to understand why you consider it a scandal that the Koch brothers would exercise their freedom of speech by contributing to their favored political cause.

You brought up many other issues that I may try to address in the next post. (author) from upstate, NY on July 30, 2013:

Team- I’m sure the majority corporate of rich guys aren’t looking for handouts from the government (unless their name is Warren Buffett) but the fact that our government has injected itself into the private sector, changes the dynamics of the market. Companies now have an incentive to try to buy off the government (and why shouldn’t they) because if they don’t and their competitor does, they may be out of business.

teamrn from Chicago on July 24, 2013:

WBS, taking that to what I think is it's logical conclusion, the government wouldn't be able to hand out 1 trillion $ annually: if American citizens (and I don't mean a select few: I MEAN ALL!) became involved in the electoral process and learning about current events.

The involvement would become a way of life, something that we all did, not because it was our civic duty to become involved, but because THAT'S THE WAY IT IS, a social more.

I'm not really sure that the corporate rich guys have it as their GOAL-'to buy off their government for their fair share of the loot.' I thin they see that spending oodles of money makes THEIR lives easier, so they donate obscene amounts and THE DONATION is what makes their lives easier. I don't think they get out of bed each morning with the burning desire to buy off the government. They take advantage the subsieies, etc, because-THEY'RE AVAILABLE and the rich , savvy businessman see and opening and makes it bigger.That is capitalism

If US cititizens don't like that part of capitalism, GET INVOLVED AND vote the bums out who write the laws who make it possible for that unbridled capitalism to take advantage of loopholes which allow for the rich to grab their 'share of the loot'. BUT DON'T STIFLE CAPITALISM IN THE PROCESS. (author) from upstate, NY on July 24, 2013:

Jon- " It is the battle of the rich guys on both sides only because of CONTROL of Government and our lives.The only power that we the people need to exercise is voting for the right candidates."

I think this is a terrific insight, if it weren't for the government handing out a trillion dollars annually in subsidies,privileges and perks to the private sector, these corporate "rich guys" wouldn't bother trying to buy off the government, for their fair share of the loot.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 20, 2013:


“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”

― Thomas Jefferson

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 20, 2013:

I consider Bill Moyers one of the last great journalists of our time. If you will look up the Koch Brothers and the American Legislative Education Council on his website, you will get a sense of what I think and why.

The ALEC in my view is the rebirth of the John Birch Society. Social prejudice at it's worst. Social Darwinism at it's most unfortunate.

With the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act the Koch Brothers made millions on manipulating oil speculation.

They have supplied Norquist with millions to pursue low taxes.

They are behind fracking.

Or more to the point, Reagan tax cuts and extreme spending has basically bankrupted state and federal governments for the purpose of limiting the governments ability to enforce the law.

It's not a conspiracy. It's a very serious reality.

Why did Rush Limbaugh get a raise after Hillary Clinton was finished as a Presidential contender in 2008. Because the Republicans did not think America was ready to elect a Black man President.

Carl Rove election night 2012 speaks volumes about the thought process and the attitudes involved. His denial over the reality of his failure was heart felt.

Regardless of why the President was successful, the stated attitude is focused on "Socialism" when in reality it is Social Darwinism.

And as for your thoughts associated with morality in a free society...Once again Social Darwinism.

Question... how many gay people are Christians? How moral is it to challenge their desire to believe in God?

A free society has the right to choose what they believe in and why. A free society has the right to disagree, but does not have the right to dictate reality to anyone. And more to the point, to use God as an excuse to dictate what and how people in a free society should live is a dictatorship.

You are not going to face my maker with me on my judgement day. As such, I have made my mistakes, I have made my choices, and I will face God alone. Everybody in this country has that same right, and nobody has the right to dictate for them what is or isn't moral.

What you seem willing to do is avoid the very nature of the Age of Enlightenment, of which our founding fathers were a fundamental part. The power exerted by the Church was of great concern during the development of the Constitution. It was the willingness of the Church to exert their prejudices as a question of morality that was being challenged. An attitude that has not changed. (author) from upstate, NY on July 20, 2013:

For who ever is interested, I found an article in "The Hoover Foundation" site that speaks about the foundation of the Constitution as it pertains to morals. I like it because it answers many" big picture" questions for me as to the nature of the moral basis of society including the government and even how it relates to tax policy.

Here is the link to the article:

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 19, 2013:

My life has been a little hectic lately. I am running behind on my correspondence.

This article and the comments passed along are some of the most interesting and challenging I have faced. Please give me a day or two to catch up.

Thank you all. (author) from upstate, NY on July 19, 2013:

Team – The reason is because it empowers politicians to buy votes and remain in office. Is that plain enough!

teamrn from Chicago on July 19, 2013:

SHOULD THE RICH PAY MORE IN TAXES is the question and I've not heard one reason WHY. I've head plenty of reasons for their paying more, but I've no heard one clear, cogent reason WHY. A good YES THEY SHOULD AND THIS IS WHY. Please explain in clear English, with a backup reason or two, why this thought (having the rich pay more in taxes) is a good thing for the country, for you and for me, for our grandchildren and grandchildren's hears. (author) from upstate, NY on July 19, 2013:

Arthur Bundy- I’ve been reading the posts going back about 5 days and wanted to comment on some of the issues you raised.

You said: “I watch as some of the most aggressive predators in our society have gone unpunished, because they can buy the political system to keep them from accountability. They can trash the economy, and pay no consequences.”

Who are these aggressive predators and what proof do you have that they control the political system? Ross Perot and Mitt Romney had more money that any presidential candidates than I can think of, but they both lost. Or do you think the Koch brothers and Warren Buffett are staging their differences to play both ends against the middle?

I think you may be overestimating how clever these people really are. I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories because they take a lot of cooperation between people of vary different interests.

May I suggest to you that these “aggressive predators” you speak of are in government and not in the private sector as you suppose. Warren Buffett and the Koch brothers have less direct control over the lives of private citizens than does a low level public official and far less control over public policy. The average member of Congress controls about 5 billion in spending annually; this typically exceeds what these billionaires could possibly spend. So who are the greedy ones, the power hungry politicians or these billionaires?

Consider this; private citizens have a choice as to whether they will buy products produced by companies owned by these uber rich billionaires or to work for them. On the other hand we have little say as to how politicians spend our tax money on or whether to pay our taxes. Think of the trillions of dollars these government agencies are costing us because of unfunded mandates and regulations. Our legislature doesn’t even have the power to decide how this money is spent because they’ve ceded their legislative authority to them.

You said: “I for one, would like to see an in depth discussion about how major corporations have used the 14th Amendment to give the corporation individual rights along with human individuals.”

The real issue in “Citizens United v. FEC” is the First amendment. Here’s a quote from my Campaign finance hub:

“McCain-Feingold officially known as The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, violated free speech rights by prohibiting corporations and unions from spending to get out a political message. They contended that parts of McCain-Feingold had a “chilling” effect on freedom of speech and that the First Amendment protects free speech regardless of who speaks, whether an individual or a group of individuals making up a corporation. Justice Kennedy contended that you can’t distinguish a corporation from the media since the media is also a corporation therefore McCain- Feingold could logically restrict all media including the press.”

For a more thorough explanation of this issue you’re welcome to read my hub:

teamrn from Chicago on July 16, 2013:

" the rich should have as high a stake in this process of taxation as the rest of us do. " Arthur, I agree that the rich should have as high a stake as the rest of us do. But, they shouldn't have a HIGHER stake, just because they're rich.

Let's say you take home $60,000 a year and tax law places you in the 45$ tax bracket. Just because Steven Spielberg brings home quite a bit more than $60,000, I'm not convinced that He should be paying MORE than our man who makes $60,000.

After all, the rich (Mr. Spielberg included)

JON EWALL from usa on July 15, 2013:

Arthur Bundy

It is the battle of the rich guys on both sides only because of CONTOL of Government and our lives.The only power that we the people need to exercise is voting for the right candidates. .

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 15, 2013:

Fannymae and Freddymac were designed to help minorities obtain housing. This article should give you some idea about why I feel the way I do.

I don't know that race is the specific issue at hand, but the manipulation of these bundled mortgages bought and sold as investments thanks to the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act, goes to the heart of why I think the rich should have as high a stake in this process of taxation as the rest of us do. If the corporations in this country faced the kind of scrutiny as was seen in the Zimmerman case, then maybe there would be more accountability focused on those who engineered the latest in a long line of economic disasters.

I think policies of major tax cuts and aggressive spending is designed to cripple the government. The label of "liberal" or "socialism" attached to this goal, designed to manipulate the general public into fighting each other, while some very powerful and wealthy people exploit the riches of the United States for all it's worth.

I think Congress is bought and sold by the highest bidder. I think both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street know this, but can't find any common ground to operate as a unifying force. Simply because prejudices are too deeply ingrained for common ground to be achieved.

The failure to find common ground is not on the the power brokers, that spend billions of dollars to control the legislative process. The failure is on us, The American People for standing by and not being more aggressively involved in our political process. For spending our times aggressively at odds with each other, because corporations control what we see and what we hear.

I for one, would like to see an in depth discussion about how major corporations have used the 14th Amendment to give the corporation individual rights along with human individuals. Taking away corporate person hood would go a long way toward leveling the playing field between individuals and the power brokers who now control Congress in Washington.

teamrn from Chicago on July 15, 2013:

Ready for a book? Ok, then let's get going! This is my third time trying to answer your post and I've been interrupted each time. Sorry not to have gotten back to you sooner.

"Look at attitudes associated with the Zimmerman Case and tell me what you see." What are the attitudes you speak of? I see that a young man died in a scuffle-we we'll never know-unless people start listening to George Zimmerman; but why should they start now?

If that man lives another 5 years I'll be surprised; the justice system determined one fate and decided he should live, but Mr. Sharpton has decided that he has more authority than the Aumerican jurisprudence system? And he calls himself a man of God? He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Black man being killed by another man of color. And yet, when 1100+ black men kill more black men in Chicago, not a word is heard.

Why haven't Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson weighed in on the CHicago killings (Jesse Jackson's and Barack Obama's back yard) but chose Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

Why did Trayvon Martin become the 'poster child' for what could have been a racially movitated crime, but we have no evidence of the fact? There were over 1100 deaths by men of color by other men of color in Chicago this past year. What is it that makes the Trayvon Martin 'case' more newsworthy? What makes him the poster boy for hate crime?

That is what I see why the Zimmerman/Martin case. Sure, I know when the media tries to whip up a frenzy and I see other people bobbing for this blood like apples.

Who is taking it personally when really the case doesn't matter more than a hill of beans. What matters more is the result of the case and the lessons we learn from it. Which leads directtly to my next thought.

The more important issue seems to me that we ought to prioritize and expend our energies deciding how we're going to deal with gun violence problems- or not. Do something about that, but don't spend energy printing magazines that portray an empty hoodie. THAT, is stereotyping that this country doesn't need.

You mentioned in an earlier post, why the Tea Party didn't exist until there was a black man in the WH. I can't believe I'm dignifying that comment with a response, but the only response I see is a coincidental response.

The TP is a movement, and movements don't come to power/fruition overnight. Barack Obama didn't arrive at the WH overnight, He was years in the making as was the TP. Little grass roots organizations erupting until they all joined hands.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what these things about Nixon, Strom Thurmond, Kent State and Mayor Daley at the '68 DNC have to do with the price of tea in China. And what of the buffalo? Unless you're taking a stab at social Darwinism or like a patient of mine, always spoke of Jim Marrs and other conspiracy theorists and theories. Thee's room for thought there, but not in this post.

Do you really think that the TP exists because of opposition to blacks? They have much better things to do than to persecute blacks. I definitely heard a thud as that major league chip hit the floor.

"What do we need a standing army for when we can destroy an entire country in less than an hour!!!" It's the ARMY, the MILITARY that can DESTROY THAT COUNTRY. I guess I'm obtuse but what do you think destroyed this country in less than an hour.

I imagine we're of the same age when you speak of a bigger world, events I remember too clearly.

When you speak about the wealthy to show you that they respect you, etc, do you want to bring them to their knees and the country with it-all to get your needs of being showed a little respect? Come now, do you really want to bring the country down-just to get your needs met. That is selfishness at it's most base level.

You mention that the wealthy are more than capable of understanding that their wealth comes from a government that has allowed to prosper. Do you really want a government so powerful, so big that it picks who prospers and who doesn't? While were at telling what WE want, I want a government that if my recent business attempts succeed, will allow me to invest the money I may make and not take all my money; a government that recognizes and RESPECTS success.

I like a discussion of facts, in Zimmerman/Martin case, as discussion of FACTS surrounding the case and conclusions that a reasonable person would draw. Quite frankly, maybe I'm so obtuse, but I don't see why Trayvon Martin entered this discussion; whatever this discussion is about.

Oh, it should surround opinions that people have about why the rich should or shouldn't pay more in taxes. Why then, are we talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and taxation w/out representation and everything BUT the rich paying-or not-more in taxes.

I don't assume and NEVER did assume that I know you better than you know and understand yourself. There is a conspiracy theory written all around here and I'm not taking part.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 14, 2013:

So, you don't think race is an issue in the Tea Party.

Look at attitudes associated with the Zimmerman Case and tell me what you see.

As for my outburst.

It frustrates me when people assume that they understand me better than I understand myself.

If we as Americans can't find common ground to speak on, then we are doomed to let those with the money and the power legislate this country from afar. It's called "Taxation without Representation". It is not the Congress who has failed us, it is we who have failed Congress. Our inability to agree on anything, to find some common ground to work with is the problem.

You don't like my opinion, but you have yet to argue on ground that can even challenge my opinion. The fundamental difference between us, is that I pay careful attention to both sides of the argument, and then I speak. I do my research on both sides of the question, and then I talk.

Lastly, my first real memory of a bigger world, was seeing the Kennedy inauguration in 1961. Then the reality of a bigger world in 1963. I remember watching Oswald get shot on live tv.

I want the very most powerful wealthy people in this country to show me, that they respect the advantages this country has brought them in pursuit of their success. That their success should not come at the expense of anybody let alone the poor. That they are capable of understanding that their wealth is as much of a government entitlement as a Social Security. Or at the very least let Social Security get the same respect that wealth demands for itself.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 13, 2013:


And just for the sake of all things constitutional:

A standing army under the Constitution is unconstitutional.

What do we need a standing army for when we can destroy an entire country in less than an hour!!!

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 13, 2013:


Please make an effort to explain to me why Strom Thurmond, a Southern Democrat became a Republican and thousands of Southern Democrats along with him. To include my father.

Then try to explain to me why the Tea Party didn't exist until there was a Black man in the White House.

Please explain to me why Nixon became so upset with Daniel Ellsberg, that he would trash his credibility, and therefore his own Presidency. By calling the peace movement during Vietnam a Communist conspiracy. Why he took it upon himself to invade the privacy of Americans in the name of national security as a result.

Please explain to me where the news media of the day, got those images of Black people in Alabama being sprayed by police with fire hoses.

Please explain to me, why four kids were killed on the grounds of Kent State.

Please explain to me why Mayor Daly took it upon himself to attack the demonstrators at the Democratic National Convention in 1968, when everybody knows who would have won both both the convention and eventually the White House. Who had the most to gain from Robert Kennedy's death?

My point was focused on Social Darwinism. The same disease that allowed Hitler to believe he had the right to kill six million Jews. The same disease that America used to destroy the buffalo in an effort to destroy the Native American way of life, because they were considered too inferior to recognize the advantages of progress.

Even the United States Supreme Court has weighed in on Eugenics.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 13, 2013:

Mr. Ewall:

What exactly are you telling me?

That interdependence and working together is out of the question?

I spent 17 years in prison. I have paid for my crime. I am supposed to be given a second chance. But, I am treated like a living pariah in our society. I am caught up in a series of laws that are a clear cut example of modern Social Darwinism at it's worst.

I am treated like a threat to society even though I finally took it upon myself to grow up. I am not supposed to be able to control myself or my behavior, but I do.

I don't live on the government. I work 7 days a week as an independent contractor for the local newspaper. I get paid enough to keep my truck on the road, but not enough to actually live on. I now have no health insurance because it finally ran out.

I am caught in an effort to reinvent myself, because I can no longer depend on my physical abilities to support me.

I can't get a decent job because no one wants to hire me. I am even being told that I should use a pseudonym, because my views are not popular today.

I can understand that people would be fearful of me. But, I have worked very hard to be less of a narcissist and more self -deprecating.

The Bible says you should love your neighbor as you love yourself. I have learned that if you don't love yourself, you can't possibly love your neighbor.

I understand that people have the right to be leery of me, but my behavior speaks for itself.

I watch as some of the most aggressive predators in our society have gone unpunished, because they can buy the political system to keep them from accountability. They can trash the economy, and pay no consequences.

The few that dictate to the many. A so-called free market, sounds a lot more like Soviet Socialism.

teamrn from Chicago on July 13, 2013:

Arthur Bundy, You addessed this to Patriot, but I'm taking the liberty of throwing in my two cents.

I had one post ready to go last night, but it didn't save it and I lost it.

I do remember commenting on the program, WIC It is no dought that infants need this help, they need milk in their early years-but not until their 20s! This is what Republicans are against.

We have a law on the books to help the needy, and a good law it is, but children do grow up and the law doesn't reflect this fact.

"I see that you seem to espouse the Tea Party and you seem to resent the Occupy Wall Street Movement. I actually believe they are shades of the same concerns."

Same concerns? One movement, the Tea Party, has a clear goal of returning this country to the Constitution. They'd like us to adhere to both the letter and spirit of the law that was laid down in 1789.

The Occupy movement, had no clear goal that I could see other than to raise awareness that they were unhappy.

What a selfish thing. Thousands are mal-ad[ted unemployed or underemployed and their concern was to raise awareness that things were not equitable in their minds? Deal with itL THE WORLD IS NOT EQUITABLE!

But, the thinking of 'me, mostest, bestest' and if crapping in your lawn and causing you to lose thousands in business happens...Oh well!

The fact that they put their vapid concerns over the millions of unemployed and other problems facing this nation, is one reasons that occupiers did not win any popularity prizes and is getting quite a rise out of me. But, there are a ton of Americans who think like me; we know of WHAT they oppose, but we also feel that their focus was in the wrong place.

This was a movement, rather like the 60s, where police were called 'pigs' and anyone who was rich was not to be trusted, definitely 'establishment' and there were the 'anti-establishment' hippies.

The 'occupy' movement has/had a vague, vacuous goal of an idea in someone's mind and it its/was different for any person. In my mind , they were demonstrating (if that's what you could call it), against the wrong entity.

Their beef was that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. SO, THEY PICK WALL STREET AS A TARGET? Wall street only does what Congress allows. They had a legit beef (in their minds) that the wealthy were not paying their fair share in taxes. So, WHY DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE WEALTHY? Demonstrate against the folks who make it legal for them TO ESCAPE TAX CONSEQUENCES if that was their beef.

They ought to have been demonstrating on the Capitol steps, with their eyes set on the very legislature that ALLOWS tax-dodging, and should have brought to Congressional attention that Americans are wise to them.

They ought to demonstrate against the very administration that allowed the poster child oF paying ZERO Dollars in federal taxes for 2 years (GE) and then 'honored' him with a position as a JOBS CZAR! Hooey.

The 'occupy' movement misplaced its efforts when it wanted to raise awareness of issues. What better place that to demonstrate and pedal their displeasure than Washington, DC? Instead, they chose WALL STREET?.

"The Occupy Wall Street Movement sees government using a blind eye allowing very powerful and wealthy people to buy and dictate the legislation of the government to their advantage." Is it the Mitt Romney's and Bush's that have the money and the power to buy and dictate legislation?

No, it's the George Soros, The Nathan Rosthchilds, the people who'd like to take over the WBS who have that money and power. Interestingly enough, they're Democrat, liberals.

Who's bone-headed move was it to have the 'occupiers' destroy property as you'd see in the mob mentality that occurred in the riots of '68 at the DNC?

That bears on criminal prosecution, for not everyone on that vacuous and EVIL Wall Street is a wealthy, trading tycoon. There are Moms and Dads, storefronts which were left in all sorts of disarray and these thugs-I use the term, because that's what people who crap on other's property's and resist arrest are called.

No someone nigher up in the OWS movement ought to have had the intelligence to know that OWS demonstrating against WS would accomplish nothing, and that a demonstration against DC would have been the better option. but, either they chose NOT to use that intelligence for reasons I can only imagine, that I'll not go into here.

I'll hop down in your post to something that really appalls me and has my concern and that is the thought that conservatives could not bring themselves to vote for President Obama because he is a black man.

Another HOOEY! "The idea of equal rights for black men then, and a black man as President of the United States now." That conservatives are 'closet racists' is absurd.

Republicans (a term not to be used interchangeably with conservatives) are about politics and conservatism is an ideology, just like liberals are an ideology and Democrats are their (often) political party.

That's only addressing part of your post, but it's time to move on!

JON EWALL from usa on July 13, 2013:

Arthur Bundy

What’s a Socialist?

A democratic Marxism, and it succeeded, even in (shh!) the United States


Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 12, 2013:

Patriot Quest:

I see that you seem to espouse the Tea Party and you seem to resent the Occupy Wall Street Movement. I actually believe they are shades of the same concerns.

It wasn't until I was in prison that I learned to understand that my father was Southern Democrat at my birth who became a Republican in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's. He along with many Southerners followed Strom Thurmond's lead.

As a result, it is my belief that we are witnessing the true nature of the modern day Republican Party. And, primarily the focus of the Tea Party. Most of these people are reacting to a change that Southern Democrats were facing in the 60's and couldn't do it. The idea of equal rights for black men then, and a black man as President of the United States now.

They seem to see government handouts as the culprit, or more to the point, the so-called liberal bench's that legislated and /or still legislate from the bench.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement sees government using a blind eye allowing very powerful and wealthy people to buy and dictate the legislation of the government to their advantage. They see their world as completely out of their control. I think they want more accountability from their government not more handouts.

What I see is Social Darwinism.

I see some very powerful and very wealthy people playing both ends of the American population against itself. To keep the public from forming any real consensus. And therefore, any real control over our government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

My favorite moment of 2012, was watching Carl Rove living in a state of denial election night, when he was faced with the fact, that the so-called 47% had spoken.

As for Mr. Ewall...Socialism is a by-word for Social Darwinism. If don't understand it...attack it.

JON EWALL from usa on July 09, 2013:



teamrns on July 09, 2013:

Patriot, in Arthur's defense, I'll tell you he lives in a city where the # of jobs in the paper every money is SCANT. I know, I live in that same city.

But, I ask Arthur to forget the table and sources and put HIS thinking cap on and use as HIS source, the 'School of Common Sense.' As those numbers on entitlements increase, where is the money to pay them (that includes me) going to come from?

I still have yet to hear a cogent reason, for WHY THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE IN TAXES-other than a fairness argument. I'd like to hear from someone as to why that seems to be a good, rock-solid idea, becaue I need some 'vincing!


Wayne Joel Bushong from America on July 09, 2013:

Arthur how can a view that set the tone for the greatest country on earth do more harm than good? Ever compare the Tea Party to the Occupy wall street crowd? Who do you want to hang with? Ever compare citizen liberals to daily conservatives? We now have more folks recieving entitlement assistance than we do working in this country and there are jobs in the paper every morning! Arthur you must be smarter than that????????

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 08, 2013:


You seem to like to use sources. I have a few sources for you.

I find this graph very interesting in the sense that it shows our GDP up against the National Debt over the course of our history. The only time the National debt ever came to a point that it over took the GDP was during World War II. This was at a time when taxes on the rich was at about 90%. I think it was actually more. FDR was not just spending he was taxing and spending. I don't think I need to establish why that was necessary.

This next graph is focused on what has been a rirual of reduced tax and spend ever since. With the added benefit of showing where things might have been without all this reduced tax and spend.

This next graph is my favorite. It focuses on the National Debt since 1929. Notice that once the National Debt peaked during World War II it continued to be effectively paid down until Reagan and the two Bushes came to office with their cut taxes and spend policies.

I don't like what the President has done. But he faces an extreme and irrational conservative view that really does more harm than good.

JON EWALL from usa on July 08, 2013:

Arthur Bundy

'' when the extreme tax and spend policies of Reagan, Bush, and Bush, is what put us in this financial mess in the first place.'' REALLY


Obama is not a king

President Obama then quickly ran up another $6 trillion of debt


Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

Friday, 12 April 2013

Obama's 2014 Budget Proposal: Tax, Spend, Elect — and Borrow

We need to come back to the real world and recognize that the Obama propaganda has truly affected a lot of free thinkers.

Wayne Joel Bushong from America on July 08, 2013:

Arthur I love you pot smoking gay Colorado boys, but you haven't a clue, go listen to some more john denver and roll another one, The rich come from Canada DAILY to get surgery over here! So what do you mean by finest? Obama is now holding off implementing health care until AFTER the next elections? If it is such a good thing then explain that? The rich built the middle class in this country and still do! Captalism is good for everyone! And for weather? We are going through a cycle, remember the dust bowl? hottest day in Co was in the 30s I believe......what was it then? And if you were seeking truth then you would acknowledge Obama has spent more than every president put together in HISTORY! therefore making Bush look like a choir child!

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 07, 2013:

Disinformation is a specialty of Fox News.

I did not spin anything.

You live in Colorado. You know that what I said about the climate here is fact. Pikes Peak is in my back yard. This was the first time in several years snow actually accumulated on top of Pikes Peak in a long time. And, it did not start until late April into early May.

I remember when Halloween usually marked the beginning of winter with the first big snow storm of the year, and winter was with us in all it's glory into April. It hasn't been like that in a long time. We are in the worst drought this area of the country has ever faced in recorded history.

We can't keep hoping that late winter storms are going to salvage the water supply. But, I give you this, these conditions will make the Two Forks Dam a reality. It does not hurt that the State Water Board has been using these recent fire disasters going back to before the Hayman fire to buy as much of the land in the Deckers area as possible, because somebody wants their dam no matter what is will cost.

As for wealth and taxation. Wealth unrestricted got into us the Depression in the 30's and the same lack of accountability hammered us this time in 2008.

How can you sit there challenging me, when the extreme tax and spend policies of Reagan, Bush, and Bush, is what put us in this financial mess in the first place.

And as for healthcare, Canada is not socialism gone awry, it's accountability at it's finest.

You do the math.

teamrn from Chicago on July 07, 2013:

"what other perspective answers your question?" The perspective that takes into consideration history and the lessons that should have been learned from history and the perspective of common sense.

Common sense tells us that if you kill the job makers, those same job makers won't be creating jobs; NO MATTER HOW MUCH HISTORY you try and spin. The job-creators won't be around to create. PERIOD.

Then there's the perspective that I've alluded to many times in this discussion, taxing the wealthy to someone ELSES' standard of 'what's fair and what isn't fair' will only make the wealthy leave these shores. Then where would we be? Did a poor man ever hire you? I doubt. It was someone who was well off or someone who had a businsss who was barely eeking out a living. Kill him and you're out a job. Seems ilk simple math (no, not even math, but ARITHMETIC) to me. What is not to get? I'm serious.

teamrn from Chicago on July 07, 2013:

I'm with you Jon. The wealthy earned their money and they should be free to CHOSE what to do with it. If they chose to hoard it all, well, I believe what goes around, comes around.

On the other hand, should they chose to, like Bill Gates, help others, they'll reap rewards in addition to the financial remuneration. But, THERE IS A CHOICE. If people don't want the wealthy to have a choice, a freedom to choose, they THEY can move. Sweden and Denmark will take them and I hear the immigration policies are alright.

Se, let Mitt keep the millions he has earned and then doled out to help thousands. Somehow, it's okay when Bill Gates makes millions and has a chance to choose what he wants to do with it, but put the same shoe on Mitt Romney's foot and somehow IT IS WRONG, it is so wrong, that he SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CHOSE. Do I hear double standard?

No, the wealthy should keep their money and decide for themselves what they would like to do with it.

There's a line from a movie that I think a fair $# of the wealthy ascribe to, and that was a line Uncle Ben uttered in Superman (I think the original), "With great power comes great responsibility" The wealthy know it more acutely than anyone else and the majority of them use their money wisely. There are a few Lindsay Lohans (but she's darn near broke)

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 07, 2013:

I think the history speaks for itself. Without the lessons of history that I have proposed, what other perspective answers your question?

1. The billions spent on elections today on both national and local levels where the only result is a totally dysfunctional U.S. Congress.

2. The business of manipulating the legislative process to make sure that one perspective, the corporate perspective is all that gets serviced.

From attempts to destroy Social Security to discrediting and destroying unions. Clearly designed to weaken the power designated to the People of the United States through our Constitution.

3. The business of war, whether it needs to exist or not. This is about wealth for the sake of wealth and has nothing to do with protecting society from the evils in the world. Mostly done through the art of disinformation. The Bush II Administration used a PR firm to sell Americans on the need for War with Iraq. Pardon the history, but here is a clear example of how cases for fear have been raised to manipulate the results. Where even the CIA has talked about "BACKLASH" associated with aggressive and dangerously one-sided foreign policy.

4. Another great example of disinformation is man's industrial effort that does "NOT" have anything to do with global warming.

I have lived in Colorado most of my life. This season is one of the worst fire seasons on record and last season was not much better. The climate has changed and I for one have no doubt that the behavior of man is responsible. In January a couple of years ago

I actually saw fly alive and well. Wealth for the sake of wealth is the only culprit, but disinformation flows like a torrent.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the only news broadcast I take seriously. This last week one of the episodes had a segment that dealt with the difference between how Canadians view their banking system and how we view ours. Canadians trust their banking system. Why is it that Americans don't trust their banking system? Simple, there is no accountability attached to our banking system.

I could go on all day bringing up examples of where wealth has clearly demonstrated the desire to exploit and abuse of their fellow Americans for the sake of protecting their wealth.

Taxation constitutes the only effective equalizer. It's one of those situations where good people get burned by the actions of the richest and most power hungry few.

When People like the Koch Brothers play both ends against the middle and profit no matter what they do. When they can manipulate elections and legislation to protect their bottom line and get away with it. When they can use their wealth to gut the spending capability of those agencies that should be holding them to account. Taxation is the only answer to forcing them to clear up their act.

JON EWALL from usa on July 07, 2013:



The Obama's don't want this video to be seen in 2012



Potential impact of Obama's 'Buffett rule ' President Obama’s

2011 tax returns rate was . 20.5 % , a lot less than his secretary


Partial list of taxes and fees in health overhaul

But the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will take the biggest hit


IRS to play major role in Health-care system ( penalty/ tax)

CBO estimates that 4 million people will pay the penalty

The rich ( whoever they are ) makes more money , hence pay their share to the treasury as the law requires.Congress makes up the loop holes, blame Congress!

Let's not condemn the rich from making profit. Profit is good for taxpayers, the money runs the government and pays to help the poor and needy.

teamrn from Chicago on July 06, 2013:

Arthur, I'm not looking at Nixon or Regan. I'm looking at the question, should the rich pay more in taxes. No more, no less. I know we need to learn from history and go to the school of hard knocks sometimes, but answer the question. Not with history, but with REASONS.

There is a definite time and place for history and anyone who ignores history, does so at his peril, but the discussion of SHOULD THE RICH PAY MORE IN TAXES needs to have some meaning other than that couched in historical perspective.


Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 06, 2013:


His name is Bruce Bartlett. He has interviewed with Bill Moyers, "Bruce Bartlett on Where the Right Went Wrong" and not 60 minutes. I don't entirely agree with his conclusions about Reaganomics, but his central theme supports my concerns about our present economic situation.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 06, 2013:

The Pentagon Papers were released to the world by Daniel Ellsberg. I would call Mr. Snowden more likely akin to him. It was the release of the Pentagon Papers that helped Nixon cross the legal limits of his presidential power and sink his own presidency. Nixon also created one of the most worthless agencies in American History when he created the DEA in response to soldiers drug use in Vietnam, suggesting it was a communist conspiracy.

As for the main topic of discussion, Ronald Reagan did more damage than good when he reduced the tax rate on the wealthy and then went on a spending spree.

I have been looking for an episode of 60 Minutes that I saw where one of Reagan's own economic advisers admits that the rich made out like bandits thanks to his tax policies, which the President had adopted.

At that time the National Debt was still manageable.

I believe that Reagan's spending and tax policies were designed to cripple the Federal and State governments financially. I believe that wealth that is unregulated does more harm than good.

My question to you is...when does the accumulation of wealthy stop being about success and become a bigger burden to society, than poverty?

Try looking at where the middle class was when Reagan took office and started crushing the unions in this country.

teamrn from Chicago on July 05, 2013:

Ok, let's set aside the journalism, which really isn't the question. It's SHOULD THE RICH PAY MORE IN TAXES. I've stated why I don't think they ought to (and I'm one of the many who would stand to benefit it they DID pay more), but asking/or requiring that they pay more, to keep me afloat ISN'T FAIR, either; especially if I've squandered my money and they've been frugal with theirs.

Margaret Thatcher did say something wise and that was 'eventually the rich would run out of money.' Then, what do we do? If the rich paid more in taxes, if they paid EVERY cent they earned, that would only fund the government for a while; and then we'd really be up a creek without a paddle.

We have to think of some other way to tackle the debt problem and not throw it all on the backs of the rich. If they're taxes are increased, you'd best believe that some of that trickle down effect would be taken out on their employees.

Suddenly, that full-time job would become part-time, the bennies would be decreased, instead of investing in that new sign, the other awning would stay until it was torn and tattered and never be replaced Salaries would not keep up with the cost of living.

As far as Bill Moyers being the last bastion of journalistic integrity, you may be sniffing really close to home. I'll have to review your link a bit more closely.

I think without knowing it, and not intending it and NOT being a journalist, Mr. Snowden has revealed the kind of things that Bill Moyers has. No, I'm not saying that the two are at ALL the same, but they both share a role in exposing an Achilles heel of our government. Patriotic? I'll lt others decide, but food for thought/grist for a mill.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on July 05, 2013:


I have some more research to do before I proceed, but I need to say that I think you are missing the point.

It's not about what is fair, it's about accountability. If Mr. Moyers is liberal I could care less. What he is, is the last bastion of serious journalists in this country who do the research, fact find the research and then tell their story.

What is called to mind is when Walter Cronkite went to Vietnam to see for himself what the facts were and came back and challenged America to see the truth about that war. Which was very consistent with the facts laid out in the Pentagon Papers, which was authored by none other than Secretary of Defense McNamara.

That kind of journalism is a lost art today. Bill Moyers is one of that last great journalists of our time.

teamrn from Chicago on July 04, 2013:

Arthur: "I can come up with to argue for rich paying their fair share of the tax burden." I felt a book coming on and each time I started to answer this question, I didn't have the time set aside to put tougher cogent thoughts.

But now, I'll finish. My reasons for saying the rich should NOT pay more in taxes (or what some entity deems FAIR) :

1) WHO will determine what is fair?

2) WHO ever said life was fair? Each of us has gone to the 'school' of hard knocks' in one way or another (health, looks, relationships, wealth or other financial challenges, not being gifted in athletics-pick what fits you)- do I go around demanding that a law be passed so that I at 60, have the shape and beauty of my 21 year old niece-because I think it unfair that she's having the youth I never had? It is irrational- so why do we think that life ought to hand us everything we want? Because some people have what they want, does that mean EVERYONE should have what OTHERS have? Gimme, gimme, gimme.

3) IMHO, I am no more ENTITLED to the fruits of Bill Gates's labors than the man on the moon. Yes, f he were to FREELY give away his millions and Id benefit, that is one thing, but for him to be forced to do so, is like another tax.

I can hear others now, saying, that taxation is fair and legal and Constitutional, so why not taxation? (as above)? There are those who strongly disagree or question the Constitutionality of a personal income tax.

Then there is the fairness argument of taxation system. Everyone KNOWS our taxation system is NOT FAIR. For starters, GE who makes millions in profit pays $0.00 in taxes for TWO YEARS? That is a primo example of an unfair tax system.

That looked like a digression , but it was more an ELABORATION of # 3.

4)My 4th reason that I don't feel (and I'll use Mitt Romney as the example this time) is that the rich do create jobs. Sure, many throw around the money that they make and buy yachts and more cars-but that keeps the boat and automakers in business.

The remaining business owners put the money they make back into their businesses, buying more equipment (so the equipment-makers stay in business) or are now able to expand and have an office for their business. This employs people: having an office means phone services (keeps people employed), janitorial services (keeps people employed), water cooler services (keeps the delivery men employed). Oh, the roof to the new building in which the office is located, leaked (another roofer is employed) and there are countless examples like that.

And so far I've ignored the obvious answer: those people who have a business (the rich) EMPLOY you and me directly so that our hours won't be cut to 29 hours a week. When we're employed full-time, we can use the money we make, to pay our bills, which contributes to the salary of one more person at VISA, or Best Buy.

This is a caveat: it really isn't good form (IMHO) to use Bill Moyers as an example for a discussion about whether or not the rich should pay more in taxes, because Bill Moyers is one of the more decidedly liberal voices and the rich paying more in taxes is generally speaking, an argument put forth by liberals. That's like asking Al Sharpton has an unbiased view of what is racist or what is not. From the get-go, the commentary is loaded.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on June 28, 2013:

I would like to add, that there are millions of Americans who lost their retirement savings as a fundamental result of these changes, which was the primary reason that The Glass- Steagall Act came to exist.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on June 28, 2013:

I have spent some time thinking about the most effective answer I can come up with to argue for rich paying their fair share of the tax burden.

This Moyers' video is a good start.

Moyers Moment (2009): Michael Perino on the Pecora Commission

July 15, 2012



JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s hearings before Congress last month were strikingly similar — in circumstances if hardly in results — to the 1930s Senate Banking Committee hearings known as the Pecora Commission. Headed by Sicilian immigrant Ferdinand Pecora, the investigation into the causes of the Wall Street crash of 1929 resulted in, among other regulatory checks, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the founding of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In this 2009 Moyers Moment from Bill Moyers Journal, Bill talks to Pecora’s biographer, Michael Perino, about the son of a shoemaker who overcame stereotypes to take on big Wall Street bankers, leaving a long-standing legacy of effective banking oversight.

Watch the full conversation between Bill Moyers, Michael Perino, and economist Simon Johnson, or read Michael Winship’s essay about the Pecora Commission on the Bill Moyers Journal site.

JON EWALL from usa on June 20, 2013:


Thanks for the link and information. The move in 1999 was another move by Clinton before leaving office. I am well aware of the banking low income debacle. The Rev. Jesse Jackson had the locals picket the Chicago banks to knuckle under to the community. (author) from upstate, NY on June 20, 2013:

Hi Jon-

Sorry about taking so long to get back to your comment. It’s highly possible that I’m not privy to all the implications of the repeal of Glass- Steagall. The bill I think you are referring to is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which undid parts of Glass-Steagall.

This legislation did not alter the lending standards and the amount of debt banks can take on relative to their equity. It’s my guess that if lending institutions allowed investors to investors to purchase commodities with less money upfront, it had more to do with the assurance that the government would back their risky policy which turned out to be the case.

Here is one referrence to this subject:

JON EWALL from usa on June 14, 2013:

It is my understanding that repealing the glass-steagal act changed the way commodities were being bought by investors. The changes allowed speculation investors to purchase commodities with less money upfront than the previous law required. Oil speculators drove oil prices up hence creating oil prices to increase up to $124.00 a barrel from a $45.00 market price.Hedgefunds and large banks were a partner in creating the recession.Democrats took majority control of Congress in 2007 and 2008 changing and ignoring request from the minority party to take actions.President Bush was blamed for the recession and so called banking failures. (author) from upstate, NY on June 13, 2013:

Arthur Bundy

Based on my research so far, the regulatory actions of the Roosevelt administration and the Fed in the wake of the Great Depression aimed at the banking industry, did nothing to increase accountability in the banking industry. As a matter of fact, just the opposite was the case, it breed corruption, some fellow Democrats even referred to the New Deal as a “Fascist Tract”.

Much if not most of FDR’s constitutionally questionable government intrusions and regulations were actually written by the very institutions he claimed to be clamping down on. General Electric executives wrote large portions of New Deal legislation and in doing so conveniently regulated their own competition out of the market place.

I am convinced that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause the current economic crisis. The repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with mortgage securitization. Banks have been selling of their mortgages since the creation of Fanny Mae in 1938.

Glass-Steagall restricted services that bank holding companies could provide to customers such as investments and insurance.

There is no evidence that any banks got in trouble because of their securities affiliates. Banks got into trouble by investing in bad mortgages or mortgage backed securities. A number of factors precipitated the 2008 economic crisis the largest of which was the U.S. government housing policy.

Restoring Glass-Steagall would hurt small banks and investors the most. Repealing Glass-Steagall softened the impact of the financial crisis. Restoring it, I believe would have grave consequences.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on May 27, 2013:


Let us just say that the spring hasn't sprung yet, but it's getting softer.

I was locked up for a very long time. You learn very quickly that there are two types of doing time. There is controlling how you do your time, and there is letting time do you. The idea being that you can make the best of it or let yourself be angry and therefore miserable. I chose to read and study. I also chose to focus on how I had failed to be accountable in my life up to that point.

The biggest lesson I got out of it was: The Bible says to "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." I learned that it you don't love yourself, you can't possibly know how to love your neighbor.

Accountability is everything to me, now.

teamrn from Chicago on May 26, 2013:

Arthur Bundy, from a fellow 'Springer,' I don't envy you the congestion and feeling ill for so long. (This growing older 'thing' isn't all that it's cracked up to be, eh! But, I've got you beat-I didn't know there was a contest involved!- with a HS graduation in '69.

I'm not as learned as you re: history, but my husband is and I rely on him and looking things up for my facts which is why my posts lack substantiation of certain matierals and conviction of others, Call me Peggy Noonan-though I'm not sure that's much of a compliment!!

I find myself less based on facts, and more based on finding positive solutions, but using facts like you presented in a very non-partisan way, on which to base my opinions. I don't take everything I read at face value, but one has to begin to trust SOMEWHERE Like Bob Dylan admonishes, (or did my brother steal this line from Dylan?) "believe NONE of what you hear and only HALF of what you see!"

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on May 26, 2013:

I have been very sick the last couple of weeks. Congested all the way down to my toes.

I have been in Colorado Springs since 1965. I am a graduate of Mitchell High School class of 1973. I live at Constitution and Academy, and have since 1969.

1933: The Depression Aftermath

In reaction to the Great Depression, Congress passed the Banking Act of 1933, better known as the Glass-Steagall Act, calling for the separation of commercial and investment banking and requiring use of government securities as collateral for Federal Reserve notes. The Act also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), placed open market operations under the Fed and required bank holding companies to be examined by the Fed, a practice that was to have profound future implications, as holding companies became a prevalent structure for banks over time. Also, as part of the massive reforms taking place, Roosevelt recalled all gold and silver certificates, effectively ending the gold and any other metallic standard.

1935: More Changes to Come

The Banking Act of 1935 called for further changes in the Fed’s structure, including the creation of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) as a separate legal entity, removal of the Treasury Secretary and the Comptroller of the Currency from the Fed’s governing board and establishment of the members’ terms at 14 years. Following World War II, the Employment Act added the goal of promising maximum employment to the list of the Fed’s responsibilities. In 1956 the Bank Holding Company Act named the Fed as the regulator of bank holding companies owning more than one bank, and in 1978 the Humphrey-Hawkins Act required the Fed chairman to report to Congress twice annually on monetary policy goals and objectives.

These last two pieces of information comes from a brief history of the Federal Reserve. It should help some people understand why I look at things the way I do.

Starting with President Reagan these aspects of the lessons of the Great Depression and the New Deal were repealed in the name of trickle down economics. I believe this opened the door to far less accountability on the part of corporations and banking institutions, and cause the latest financial meltdown.

teamrn from Chicago on May 19, 2013:

I think this has become OUR responsibility. The way it is SUPPOSED to work is that we elect these guys and when THEY see something wrong, they police it. Unfortunately, that's not how its happening, so it's up to the citizens to throw out the reps who aren't doing what WE want them to do.

The same goes with the press. If we're not pleased with the POTUS, then we kick their union in the teeth. This is why I'm against unions. They keep the incompetent Chris Mattews on and on and on when he doesn't do what Dylan Ratigan or Charles Krauthammer does-they do their jobs where CM and AL Sharpton (who now calls himself one of the press) sensationalizes.

JON EWALL from usa on May 19, 2013:


The media has covered for the Obama administration, maybe they finally woke up


Team Obama's scary crusade against affordable, reliable ENERGY

The worst part of Obama’s crusade against affordable, reliable energy is that it’s an undeclared war


Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

Hopefully honest members of Congress WILL STAY ON THE ATTACK AND EXPOSE THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHO THEY really are.

teamrn from Chicago on May 18, 2013:

Jon, this is actually what I meant to post:

teamrn from Chicago on May 18, 2013:

Jon, slowly the gild is coming off the rose, especially with this API thing. You heard Joe Scarborough, EVEN CHRIS MATTEWS got into the act. Throw in a little Benghazi and IRS and all the other foibles and PURE ******* and will the walls start tumbling down?

Carl Bernstein contributes quite a bit: Spend 9 minutes:

JON EWALL from usa on May 15, 2013:


''if Dirty Harry tables bills '' As long as the media keeps running cover for the President and Reids antics including the silence of the die hard Dem party members who don't believe in doing the work that the people sent them to do.

Recommed watching c-span 1,2 and three hearings on the IRS, AP REPORTERS AND LIBYA


Benghazi Whistle blower Hearing on C-Span3 live and un edited!

POTUS ‘’ to tell the TRUTH ‘’ Benghazi A MEDIA COVER UP


teamrn from Chicago on May 14, 2013:

Jon, I think we're in agreement more than disagreement. How can it work if Dirty Harry tables bills that could prevent reelection of D-Senators before they come to a vote?

JON EWALL from usa on May 14, 2013:


The House has passed a bill to repeal OBAMACARE 3 TIMES. The bill would be passed in the Senate except for Senator Reid and the UNION supported party Senators.The people need to concentrate on how to convince only a small numbers of Dem Senators to force Reid to move to a vote. The President would than be forced to put on a Chicago style arm twister on some Senators.Hubbers, let's unite for a better Health plan for all citizens.5/1/13 Train Wreck Ahead

details of President Obama's Affordable Care Act

teamrn from Chicago on May 14, 2013:

Jon, The thing is, maybe the wealthiest will take the creates hit, but the middle and lower middle classes are going to be hit hard and are already hit.

Another thing that concerns me, "— Employer penalties. Starting in 2014, companies with 50 or more employees that do not offer coverage will face penalties if at least one of their employees receives government-subsidized coverage. The penalty is $2,000 per employee, but a company's first 30 workers don't count toward the total."

The goal in this economy-or lack thereof- is to try to CREATE jobs. When employers who are barely eeking by are faced with penalties, the LAST thing they're going to do, the last thing that they'll be financially able to do, is make that part-time position, a full-time position. Or make that position without benefits, one WITH benefits.

They WANT to create more jobs, but they're hamstrung, because our POTUS wanted to get his name on the map. Companies instead of creating more full time positions will be taking more positions part-time. There will be, AND ALREADY IS, a move towards an increase in 29 hour-a-week jobs.

Getting another job isn't always the answer, because 29 hours a week only gives you time for another 29 hour a week job, neither of which has to pay you benefits. But employers are finding it more economical to pay the penalty fo rnot providing health insurance. So much for company loyalty and we're all in this together. It's now "each man to his own." SAD. Thank you, BO.

JON EWALL from usa on May 14, 2013:


Partial list of taxes and fees in health overhaul

But the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will take the biggest hit, starting next year.

additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income. Together these are the biggest tax increase in the health care law.

Tax the rich, that's great.Those on the bottom will be paying more. (author) from upstate, NY on May 14, 2013:

Arthur Bundy

Thanks for your kind words and civility! I agree with you that using manners when discussing politics seems to be a skill that is in short supply.


teamrn from Chicago on May 14, 2013:


Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on May 13, 2013:

I am very impressed with your attitude.

I like the idea of intelligent discourse. It is in short supply considering some of the people I have spoken to in other articles.

I need to think, but I will respond.

Thank you. (author) from upstate, NY on May 12, 2013:


“Sure, I'm responsible to my fellow man, but every society that has really implemented WE;RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER as their MO-has failed.”

There’s a big difference between helping others because you feel it’s the right thing to do and helping others because you’re forced to. I truly believe that we’re all equal in the eyes of God but that doesn’t mean we’re all equal in skill, talent and appearance or that we all make equally good life decisions. We can’t create an equal society when God ordained a diverse one. (author) from upstate, NY on May 10, 2013:

Arthur Bundy

Because of the many issues that you’ve brought up, this response will likely be quite lengthy.

"It was, and is the Reagan tax cuts and spending heavily that created this National Debt issue we face today.”

Tax cuts don’t cause debt, spending does. The reason we create debt is because we spend more than we take in. The Reagan tax cuts, along with the Kennedy and Coolidge tax cuts all generated more (not less) revenues. Also Congress technically controls the purse strings of government and during the Reagan years, Congress had large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

“Corporate Profits are at an all-time high while wages in this country have stagnated.”

According to a study done by the Federal Reserve of St Louis, labor’s share of national income has averaged 70.5% (of national income) for the last 50 years with little variation. Studies that show wages stagnating, conveniently ignore overall compensation including the rising cost of employee benefits. If the relative cost of employee benefits rises, it follows that the increase in wages will stagnate.

“The housing bubble might not have burst had cost of living wage increases been in place along with these so-called toxic mortgages. It was major corporate greed that caused that situation to exist. I believe toxic mortgages were designed to undercut and paralyze the middle class.”

The housing bubble was caused by the government intervention in the private sector not corporate greed. Government sponsored legislation mainly favored by liberals, motivated lending institutions to make unwise loans that without the government backing, they would have never made. Other factors in the housing bubble include the Fed keeping interest rates low for too long and the fallout from 911. Toxic mortgages were only made possible by the actions of the government. It’s misguided too attribute these problems to the free markets or the private sector because the source of the problem is the government.

“While at the same time Corporations have effectively limited their tax responsibilities. Which keeps government regulation at bay, and corporate accountability from seeing the light of day.”

The vast majority of corporations that have limited their tax liabilities are those who are politically connected with the current administration. The reason for this corruption is government intervention in the private sector

Government regulation is more the problem than the solution, in regards to corporate accountability. When the government intervenes in the private sector it artificially creates winners and losers in the market place. This is a recipe for corruption! The free market has its own brutally effective measures of accountability. If a company defrauds the public or produces unwanted or inferior products, that company will go bankrupt regardless of how many years it had faithfully served its customers. The government, on the other hand often gets rewarded for poor and damaging decisions. If a regulatory agency policy harms the public, the response other than an occasional slap on the wrist, is to farther empower that very agency to try to fix the problems they themselves created.

“Whether it's Democrat or Republican consequences that are to blame is not the issue. It is the very effective efforts of dividing public opinion to avoid any real consensus on the part of the general public that is the issue.”

There may be some truth to this. The political class in Washington seems intent on growing the government and subverting individual freedoms regardless of the party elected, although I obviously see the democrats as far more dangerous in this regard.

“President Eisenhower cited the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex". We now have a Standing Army which is unconstitutional”

I’ll admit that I don’t yet have a fully formed opinion as the threat of the "Military-Industrial Complex". You may have a valid point here because a large standing peacetime military is a very effective way to grow the government. My next course of study will have to be, what was the true founding vision for foreign policy? Having said that though, I don’t see any Constitutional grounds for the Federal government to finance any social program or enforce any wealth redistribution scheme. The Constitution charges State and local governments with all decisions and power regarding social welfare. The federal government does have a legitimate power of raising armies in defense of the nation.

teamrn from Chicago on May 08, 2013:

Wba, it is NOT right that someone who worked hard for what he has, has to take care of me when things are good for him, So, I've had it rough; does that make it fair and right and quitable that HE have it rough as well?

There is such a thing as personal responsibility. I'm responsible for me. Sure, I'm responsible to my fellow man, but every society that has really implemented WE;RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER as their MO-has failed. Look at Greece, they took care of each other to the nth degree; then when there was no more of Bill Gate's $$ to pay their bills and be spread around, they reacted like animals. If my life is to be the life of the poor, at least I'll have the dignity of making my own way and not leeching off of others. (author) from upstate, NY on May 08, 2013:


“My husband and are at the bottom of the heap; but that gives me no more right to Bill Gate's money than anyone else. Just because it seems equitable?”

Good intentions are over rated, in fact it’s the very material used, on that road to where no one wants to go!

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on May 06, 2013:

The graph I mentioned speaks volumes to me. It was the New Deal that taxed heavily while spending heavily. By 1976 the National Debt was manageable. It was, and is the Reagan tax cuts and spending heavily that created this National Debt issue we face today.

There is another graph "A Comparison of Corporate Profits and Wages Over the Last 70 Years" found at that reaffirms my point. Corporate Profits are at an all time high while wages in this country have stagnated.

Had wages in this country been allowed a cost of living increase along with the cost of production increases that corporations enjoy, I believe the playing field would still be somewhat level, and the National Debt would not be the issue it has become.

The housing bubble might not have burst had cost of living wage increases been in place along with these so-called toxic mortgages. It was major corporate greed that caused that situation to exist. I believe toxic mortgages were designed to undercut and paralyze the middle class.

Whether it's Democrat or Republican consequences that are to blame is not the issue. It is the very effective efforts of dividing public opinion to avoid any real consensus on the part of the general public that is the issue.

As for who controls what. President Eisenhower cited the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex". We now have a Standing Army which is unconstitutional. But, allegedly necessary in the face of nuclear paranoia. We live in a world where our own nuclear deterrent can destroy the world.

Corporations have effectively privatized just about every aspect of all federal and state budgets. Our Standing Army is one of the results of that.

While at the same time Corporations have effectively limited their tax responsibilities. Which keeps government regulation at bay, and corporate accountability from seeing the light of day.

The best example of this comes in the form of what our nation does for the people who do the fighting for our nation. Our military comes home to an antiquated and out-of-date veterans services platform, that is the very essence of what Corporate America does for those who keep them in business.

We now live in a society of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. That is not how or why the Constitution was designed.

Annie on May 06, 2013:

WBA- I so much agree and throughout this whole discussion I've failed to see how raising taxes on the wealthier few who have provided a service to society, is anything but a temporary fix. We ought to be looking for permanent solutions. This suggestion (or raising taxes on the wealthy is no more than a temporary fix, a band-aid as it were.

Some may say, aha, she must be wealthy or a recipient of some of the wealthy's money. Au contra ire. My husband and are at the bottom of the heap; but that gives me no more right to Bill Gate's money than anyone else. Just because it seems equitable? What happens when Bill Gates runs out of money to give me? GREECE IS WHAT HAPPENS! (author) from upstate, NY on May 06, 2013:


“What about someone who had a great idea, solved peoples' problems, created jobs and sold a lot of those problem solvers and made a profit? How is that stealing?”

My sentiments exactly, this is the morality of a grownup, those who provide something of value should be compensated for it. The morality of the left has more to do with class envy and personal greed. Thanks for commenting! (author) from upstate, NY on May 06, 2013:

Team and Jon

"Up until this year, I had planned to spend $50,000 more per year than I make in salary at my job. And I had planned to add that extra $50,000 every year onto my credit card. But this year, I'm being financially responsible and reducing the deficit by $180,000 because I plan to spend only $32,000 more than I make, every year, for at least the next 10 years. And even though I will continue to add to my debts, I hope to get a really big promotion at work that will make a lot more money. So I expect that as my debts increase, it will remain proportionate with my income.”

Liberal politicians with the aid of a willing media are so easily able to hoodwink the public with presumptuous and fallacious reasoning. I hope people will wise up and look into these things and not with just a narrow self-interest but to see the big picture. (author) from upstate, NY on May 06, 2013:

Sorry for taking so long to get on everyone’s comments, I’ve been away on business for about a week. (author) from upstate, NY on May 06, 2013:

Arthur Bundy -. “FDR spent, but he taxed heavily to compensate for it.”

The fallacy here is that FDR’S tax and spend programs were directly responsible for the record high employment that existed at the time.

” He had effectively leveled the playing field between rich and poor alike”

Big government redistributive tax and spend policies do anything but level the playing field. Raising taxes on businesses most often causes the decision makers to shift their critical resources to more productive areas. These folks aren’t just going to just stand by and let the government pick their pockets. For the workers who depend on these businesses for their livelihood it often means layoffs, limited opportunities, higher costs of living and government dependency. In this environment the gap between the rich and poor grows wider not narrower as you suppose.

The true effect of these types of interventions is to favor larger politically connected businesses at the expense of their smaller competitors. The vast majority of revenue extracted from the productive private sector is used to expand bureaucracies and pay off their big business or big labor political allies

“The wealth and power brokers in this country have quietly and systematically legislated their way into control of the political process, because the middle class had become too powerful”

Liberals who favor government tax and spend policies now control the largest share of the wealth and power in America. The middle class has been devastated by the liberal agenda as described above. The same folks that are beating the drums for taxing the rich are the ones responsible for the problem.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on April 30, 2013:

Jon Ewall:

Through the billions of dollars spent to lobby Congress to legislate major tax cuts and loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Buying elections to elect people focused solely on the agenda of corporations. Privatizing everything from the military to the prison system to maximize profits. Making sure that unions and their power is crippled and wages stay stagnant.


Did you look at the graph I suggested!!! NO!

I am not a loser. I am a registered sex offender, who is caught in a web of BS legislation that along with media hype and deceit can't get a decent job, because a background check alleges that one of my aliases is Ted Bundy!!!

William A. Howard IV from Baltimore Maryland (USA) on April 29, 2013:

Losers who can't make money accuse the rich of stealing their money. What about someone who had a great idea, solved peoples' problems, created jobs and sold a lot of those problem solvers and made a profit? How is that stealing?

JON EWALL from usa on April 29, 2013:

Arthur Bundy

''rich should be forced to pay back the money they stole from the federal and state budgets.'' How did the rich steal, can you explain with factual information.Who do you consider as the rich?Obama was not mentioned in your post, in 4 years Obama added $6 trillion to the national debt.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on April 28, 2013:

There is a graph at on the internet called "National Debt by President" that effectively challenges the alleged facts laid out here. FDR spent, but he taxed heavily to compensate for it. He had effectively leveled the playing field between rich and poor alike, and made our country better for it.

Since the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, the the wealth and power brokers in this country have quietly and systematically legislated their way into control of the political process, because the middle class had become too powerful.

Reagan was their puppet master. Reagan cut taxes on the rich and then spent the government into submission. Had Reagan and the Bushes taken a balanced approach to their tax and spent policies the country would not be in the financial mess it is in.

Reagan and Bush tax cuts and spend policies should be regarded as illegal and the rich should be forced to pay back the money they stole from the federal and state budgets.

teamrn from Chicago on April 27, 2013:

Jon, this about sums up Mr. Obama's feeling on the debt and deficit:

"Up until this year, I had planned to spend $50,000 more per year than I make in salary at my job. And I had planned to add that extra $50,000 every year onto my credit card. But this year, I'm being financially responsible and reducing the deficit by $180,000 because I plan to spend only $32,000 more than I make, every year, for at least the next 10 years. And even though I will continue to add to my debts, I hope to get a really big promotion at work that will make a lot more money. So I expect that as my debts increase, it will remain proportionate with my income.

Harry Hopkins, former advisor to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was once reputed to have summarized to Republican fundraisers FDR's political strategy as “tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.” Though the quote was not an accurate reflection of Hopkins' words, the mis-attributed words were an able summary of the Roosevelt political strategy.

The Obama administration has added “borrow and borrow” to Roosevelt's political strategy."

JON EWALL from usa on April 26, 2013:


For your viewing pleasure.Paul Ryan, R- Wis., details the GOP plan BUDGET

12 April 2013

Obama's 2014 Budget Proposal

Mar 23 2013

teamrn on April 26, 2013:

It is Chris van Hollen's 'job' to tow the party line, but I find him to be almost as inflexible as DWS. I'll watch your span video tomorrow; "Walk the Line" and the BeeGees and a glass of wine make for much more relaxation on my Friday night!

JON EWALL from usa on April 26, 2013:


House budget committee hearing.

Van Hollen Ryan in action (author) from upstate, NY on April 26, 2013:



Boy, this is scary stuff; I’ll have to look into it! If even a small amount of this is true it’s very shocking to say the least! If he’s gotten away with all this, you wonder why? If these charges can be proven, why haven’t they brought this to the courts? Is it because you can’t do that to a sitting president and why weren’t these charges made before he was elected?

Ryan and Van Hollen DEBATE Medicare Proposals

As I listen to this debate, I think what’s striking is that Van Hollen seems to believe his view is legitimate without providing one shred of verifiable evidence. Even though Ryan can produce one verified fact after another, it doesn’t seem to faze Van Hollen, probably because he doesn’t feel the need defend his position with any real evidence.

JON EWALL from usa on April 24, 2013:

I listened to the video, would recommend for another view of present affairs in our country.


Ryan and Van Hollen DEBATE Medicare Proposals


Congressional Progressive Caucus

Supporting organizations unions


Only a higher being can save our country.In Washington, today, right is wrong and wrong is right, sad to say. (author) from upstate, NY on April 23, 2013:

Hi Jon-

It’s really true that liberals aren't just wrong about some things, their consistently wrong about everything! How can this be? This you tube video explains why, it’s fascinating! The video is put out by the Heritage Foundation and it’s called- How modern liberals think. Here’s the link- (author) from upstate, NY on April 21, 2013:


When I mentioned the radically rich, I was referring to radically rich liberals who preach equality of means but then use their influence in government to secure tax breaks, subsidies and federal contracts for themselves while their less politically connected competitors are denied these advantages. To add insult to injury they even lobby to raise taxes on their less connected competitors while exempting themselves.

I have no problem with those who've gained their wealth because they've done a better job meeting the needs of their customers. What I have a problem with, is those who subvert the free market by joining with government to establish their own advantage in the marketplace.

The mitt Romney’s and the Bill Gates’s of the world have by in large gained their wealth by providing something of value to others and have also created opportunities and jobs. For this they should be commended not demonized! `

teamrns on April 20, 2013:

It seems I need to remind my liberal friends of that truism, ..."THERE MUST BE TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY.." I thought it was common sense, but I guess not.

Thanks for extending the olive branch! Annie and no offense is ever taking. Well, rarely!!!

Related Articles