3 ms·

Yeah, unfortunately you can always find example of people who really are bastards, but the examples come from both sides. On one hand you have Keynesians who w

Yeah, unfortunately you can always find example of people who really are bastards, but the examples come from both sides. On one hand you have Keynesians who want to screw the rich out of envy and spite and have no concern for the poor, or even worse, actually want to oppress the poor to keep them as their constituents. On the other hand, you have, like in your example, capitalists who think of the poor as an inferior species to be ignored, or worse, eliminated. Neither side is immune.

kenjackson 16y ago
But I do think that Krugman's position has some merit. Watch the Sunday morning shows. The argument that cutting taxes for the wealthiest is not about stimulating the economy. It's about doing what is moral for the wealthy. And if you read the comments in the right-leaning blogs, you'll see a LOT, if not the majority of comments being about how these taxes go to the worst in society -- poor, Blacks, Kenyans, communists, illegal immigrants, etc... I mean think about this. We're talking about an increase of 4% in the marginal tax rate for those making above $250k/year. A rational argument would be to look at the impact of where these tax dollars go versus what the wealthy might do with it. In itself this should be a very innocuous discussion. But look at what we have. This is not about the best way to make the world a better place. But I do think it is more about "who _deserves_ to have resources".
- zzzmarcus 16y ago
  I agree, part of the argument of the rich is that they "deserve" to keep their riches, but what the Sunday morning shows and right wing blog comments may not highlight (I don't watch those shows or read the blogs) is the complete argument for why the rich should keep their wealth, regardless of if they "deserve" to keep it. Of course greed and self-interest is part of the motivation for making those arguments, but most free market economists and supporters truly believe that by allowing the rich to keep their wealth that all of society will benefit. Rich, poor, everyone. You may disagree, lots of people do since at face value it is counter-intuitive, but my point is just that a lot, probably the majority of free market supporters, actually do have the benefit of all of society in mind. They'd say that the 4% increase in marginal tax rate would actually be detrimental to the poor. Again, you may have excellent arguments for why it is better for the government to take and spend that money, but they have logical counter-arguments.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    I don't disagree that a rate increase _might_ be a bad thing (although I don't think it is). But I do think, that as Krugman points out, this is not the current argument. In Reagan's era they would pitch trickle down as how everyone benefits from these tax cuts. The actual stated goal was to make life better for everyone, but starting from the top. The current stated goal from the right is that the rich deserve the money, and the poor do NOT deserve. Not that the tax cuts will have some side benefit to the poor. Rather that we need to keep the money out of the hands of the poor. This is why the constantly use the code word "welfare" when talking to their base. Again, there is a very rational argument to be had here. In fact, I think a rational argument would be a very boring one for most people in the US. But I think the reason that everyone is up in arms is not due to their passion for capitalism. But rather I think there's a fundamental belief that there are certain groups of people unworthy of _their_ money.

kenjackson 16y ago

But I do think that Krugman's position has some merit. Watch the Sunday morning shows. The argument that cutting taxes for the wealthiest is not about stimulating the economy. It's about doing what is moral for the wealthy. And if you read the comments in the right-leaning blogs, you'll see a LOT, if not the majority of comments being about how these taxes go to the worst in society -- poor, Blacks, Kenyans, communists, illegal immigrants, etc... I mean think about this. We're talking about an increase of 4% in the marginal tax rate for those making above $250k/year. A rational argument would be to look at the impact of where these tax dollars go versus what the wealthy might do with it. In itself this should be a very innocuous discussion. But look at what we have. This is not about the best way to make the world a better place. But I do think it is more about "who _deserves_ to have resources".

zzzmarcus 16y ago
I agree, part of the argument of the rich is that they "deserve" to keep their riches, but what the Sunday morning shows and right wing blog comments may not highlight (I don't watch those shows or read the blogs) is the complete argument for why the rich should keep their wealth, regardless of if they "deserve" to keep it. Of course greed and self-interest is part of the motivation for making those arguments, but most free market economists and supporters truly believe that by allowing the rich to keep their wealth that all of society will benefit. Rich, poor, everyone. You may disagree, lots of people do since at face value it is counter-intuitive, but my point is just that a lot, probably the majority of free market supporters, actually do have the benefit of all of society in mind. They'd say that the 4% increase in marginal tax rate would actually be detrimental to the poor. Again, you may have excellent arguments for why it is better for the government to take and spend that money, but they have logical counter-arguments.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  I don't disagree that a rate increase _might_ be a bad thing (although I don't think it is). But I do think, that as Krugman points out, this is not the current argument. In Reagan's era they would pitch trickle down as how everyone benefits from these tax cuts. The actual stated goal was to make life better for everyone, but starting from the top. The current stated goal from the right is that the rich deserve the money, and the poor do NOT deserve. Not that the tax cuts will have some side benefit to the poor. Rather that we need to keep the money out of the hands of the poor. This is why the constantly use the code word "welfare" when talking to their base. Again, there is a very rational argument to be had here. In fact, I think a rational argument would be a very boring one for most people in the US. But I think the reason that everyone is up in arms is not due to their passion for capitalism. But rather I think there's a fundamental belief that there are certain groups of people unworthy of _their_ money.