October 21, 2005
Even Boortz is Ahead of Me
from - smijer
I'm way behind the curve... y'all understand why... I'm way behind on bringing ridicule to Neal Boortz "save the rich" rant (mp3 here if you missed it) It seems everybody has got a chunk out of him lately. Even his listeners... and it seems that Boortz has gone out of character and posted, unedited, some of the more blistering and even thoughtful listener responses...
Hey dipweed...
They would be homeless if it were not for the contracters and the workers, who built the home for them to flop their lazy asses down. Personally I am disgusted at what you say, I am disgusted with them. Millions of fathers and mothers, including my own, work their hands to blisters to give a meaningful existance to their kids, and you have the guall to call them out and state that beacuae they don't make a couple million dollars a month they are not as good as someone that does? Let me tell you somthing dipweed, my father warks his ass off every day in the heat an/or cold, to provide for his family, I will guarantee that my dad is a better man than Donald Trump. Why don't you shout back, I would really enjoy hearing your pathetic point of veiw.
Don't take it personally - it's just LOGIC
If we had to set priorities on who to save first, I would recommend medical and law enforcement personnel, teachers, and the more intelligent members of our society. Unfortunately, Neil, that would leave you on the outside looking in.
His friends at the country club will set up PO Boxes in tiny island nations in order to avoid paying the taxes that provide what made his company grow: infrastructure, security, and trained personnel.They expect the rest of us to pay to clean up their messes (wouldn't want to bite into profits).
And then they send America's jobs to Communist countries where the work is done by slave labor, all so that a mega-retailer can undercut the prices of local entreprenuers.
After the wealthy squandered America's prosperity in the 20s, that prosperity was rebuilt in the 40s and 50s and 60s. It wasn't the rich who made things great that time around. It was the riff-raff and the returning GIs who got good educations, and invented our new world. They went from working poor to middle class to entreprenuer. Meanwhile, those with the burden of inherited wealth stagnated. Industries that didn't adapt rusted away.
Somewhere along the way - in the Reagan years - too many people decided that it was too much work to do the old-fashioned Horatio Alger thing. They looked for shortcuts. Then they built personal fortunes while stomping on the workers, the retirees, the investors: everyone who trusted the rich crooks.
Then there are those who use political connections to accumulate wealth. The list goes back into pre-history, but no one does it like today's Republicans. If you don't know who I mean, then read a newspaper.
Beautiful...
The only thing I have to add is this: Is this the man you want re-writing the tax code? Probably -- if your name is Ken Lay.
::Posted by smijer at October 21, 2005 07:41 AM
yeah... he's a bit of an a$$. a demagogue like savage.
|
Posted by gringo on October 22, 2005 02:37 AM Link to comment |
Have you read The Fair Tax Book? You should if you haven't. You really should.
|
|
Posted by Whitestone on October 22, 2005 11:02 PM Link to comment |
One other comment; when you say,"The only thing I have to add is this: Is this the man you want re-writing the tax code?", doesn't that leave your readers in the dark a little. The only thing you gave us was comments from people who dislike Neal Boortz. What does that have to do with the Fair Tax Law, or even Neal Boortz for that matter. You can find anyone, anytime, anywhere, to criticize anyone who is living or has ever lived. Politicians and their hanymen have, with the aid of media blitz and internet, made criticism so distasteful and usually dishonest and unfair as to render it irrelevant and useless. When men had values, scruples, and wisdom, criticism was a useful tool and had meaning. Alas, today it is mostly used by those who have nothing else to offer.
|
|
Posted by whitestone on October 22, 2005 11:15 PM Link to comment |
I included those comments because the criticisms they offerred were valid... yeah, maybe there was the occasional tu quoque fallacy thrown in, but generally, they did a good job expressing the obvious... that Neal Boortz undisguised aristocratic viewpoint does not meet with the standards almost all of us share who live in a democracy, where wealth doesn't equal worth.
Yes, Boortz does have some sycophants - some "dittoheads" so to speak, who will agree with him no matter how absurd or unfactual his statements may be. And, no, I don't see the need to post their comments - Boortz himself has an audience of millions... I'm trying to amplify the voice of his detractors, whose reach is very small, but whose message tends to be much more deserving of an audience.
No - I haven't read the FairTax book. I've looked at the legislative proposals, and read a fair bit of the FairTax web-site and other pro-FairTax propaganda. Without having read the book, I cannot criticize the book. But I know enough about the proposal to criticize the propsal.. and have done so in the past... But is a fair question -- do you want someone who has the attitude that the rich are inherently more valuable to society than the middle and lower classes having a large say in how the tax code is written? Yes? Fine... My answer is no... and I think most folks with common sense, and without a six figure income, will agree with me.
|
|
Posted by smijer on October 23, 2005 09:59 PM Link to comment |
Dave, what a revelation. I never would have thought that Boortz was a blow-hard radio personality... I figured he just must be a senator, or an official at the accounting office, especially to be co-authoring a book about the "fair" tax with a U.S. Representative from Georgia...
|
|
Posted by smijer on October 24, 2005 04:19 PM Link to comment |
Personally, I have listened to Boortz and read the book. While I disagree with some of what he says on some issues, I think that unless you listen to him, you probably do not know what he is all about. He is an entertainer, but he also has a lot of insight. He is not afraid to say what he thinks and he can see through the left wing propaganda and bologna, joke about it, and keep going. He has a depth of understanding about a free society that most Americans have either lost or never had in the first place. This, "hate the rich" philosophy for example that is so prevalent in the liberal political rhetoric; Neal understands that it is the filthy rich democrats who want to, indeed must, keep this going. They can't keep you poor and dependent on the government any other way. The only way politicians can remain "rich" is to keep enlarging the numbers of those who must depend on the government. To do this, they must make all middle class and poor Americans believe that it is wicked to be financially independent. Some people have enough insight to see what is going on, and others do not. Neal Boortz sees it clearly.
|
|
Posted by Whitestone on October 24, 2005 06:29 PM Link to comment |
I've listened to him, and read his "Nuze" page fairly regularly... I understand his portrayal of himself of an opinionated entertainer... fine... I even agree with some of his expressed opinions: he is against teaching creationism in school, for instance...
But his viewpoints on economics appear, to me, to be informed by a strong aristocratic streak "the rich deserve wealth, the poor deserve poverty", and a kind of straw-man folk-wisdom that a progressive attitude toward poverty and working class people amounts to "keeping the poor dependent on the government."
Well, I for one, would prefer to see the poor "dependent on the government" than to see their children starve or go without medical care - that's why I support the New Deal entitlements... And, I also have a moderate conservative fiscal viewpoint; I'm not 100% behind Clinton's "welfare to work" reforms, but you have to give him credit for getting some people off the welfare roles and into a situation where they had a better chance at self-determination... This is much more than any self-styled conservative or libertarian has ever accomplished toward reducing the dependence of the poor on the government...
And, as I always like to remind people who feel the government should never provide for the general welfare of the people - we are the government. If the unfortunate in our society cannot depend on the government for a leg up - a better education, opportunity in the job market, WIC and food stamps to get them through until they can make it on their own... that means they cannot depend on us. Basically, it means we, as a society, are undependable. The theory that everyone would just individually do what it takes to solve these problems if the mean old nasty government would just go away is completely specious. Where has there ever been a state without social programs where the volunteer community just stepped up to the plate and took care of the problems? It hasn't happened.
Boortz sees clearly - it is true... but the picture he sees clearly is one that is being painted by himself and others like him, going all the way back to Ayn Rand, on the canvass of the public mind. But, clearly as this picture may be seen, it isn't an accurate representation of reality. For that, you need to move beyond rhetoric - what Boortz calls "logic" - and look at some real life situations... look at the real people, with real smarts, and real willingness to work, but who - because of institutional obstacles, or just plain bad luck in an erratic economy, are unable temporarily or long term, to get their feet solidly planted on the ground of financial security. And then look at the Paris Hiltons of the world, who think work involves a round of golf at the country club with a high-dollar client or a lobbyist... Look at enough of these, and the demographics and statistics that scientifically describe the economics of this land, and eventually the true image will start to replace the fantasy image of the laissez-faire Republicans.
|
|
Posted by smijer on October 24, 2005 06:49 PM Link to comment |
Hmmm...that dave above? not me...
|
|
Posted by dave (random ravings) on October 25, 2005 01:59 PM Link to comment |
So, you are saying that you have bought into the idea that the majority of the American people are unable to provide adequately for themselves and that the only solution is for all Americans to "pay", fork-over, or whatever you want to call it, a large percentage of their income to a kind Uncle who cares for them better than they could have kept their own money to care for themselves. You see poor Americans who are better off because of the extremely high tax burden. I see the majority of the hard working American people struggling under an unfair tax burden. I also know that the American people are more than willing to help the less fortunate who need help. Our problem is that when we make working unproductive, we hurt everyone. Try removing the tax burden and watch our economy improve significantly. There will always be some who need assistance. When families, community, and church are unable, the government should, has, and will continue to step in. A fair tax will not change that.
When the middle class becomes the burdened, the truly needy receive less help, those who could have provided for themselves end up on welfare roles and only the elite remain unscathed. You say, "And, I also have a moderate conservative fiscal viewpoint.." That is a joke, right? You can't have it both ways. You can believe that you can have it both ways, until the government gets more and more control and eventually, you will realize, you could not have it both ways. You should decide, do you want to work for the government or for yourself. If you believe that you can manage and invest your wages better than the government can manage and invest your wages, then you should realize that ALL Americans are intelligent enough to do the very same thing. It does not mean that millions are going to starve. It means that millions are going to gain self-respect, dignity, incentive, and the ability to care for their families. It will allow you to look around you and help those next door to you who need help, if you honestly care about helping. Almost every city has a community kitchen, a mission house, apartments for elderly people and those who would love not just your money, but your time.
|
|
Posted by Whitestone on October 25, 2005 09:22 PM Link to comment |
So, you are saying that you have bought into the idea that the majority of the American people are unable to provide adequately for themselves...
Straightforward answer - no... the poor are a (growing) minority. Of that minority, some, because of catastrophic problems will never be able to take care of themselves. Others, just need enough help to get by until they can get their feet back on the ground.
Another, more roundabout, answer... Yes. This is the "no man is an island" syndrome. Without a healthy infrastructure, without government policing the markets, without an educated workforce and a secure state, safe from outside threats, very few people could "take care of themselves." We are all in it together... In our system, the vast majority are able to succeed and live very comfortably without any direct "handouts" from the government, but we are only able to do so because our banks are insured, we have good roads to get to work, and we have a pretty well-educated population. Is that a "government handout"? I don't know... but I do know that, without it, we'd be hunters & gatherers.
and that the only solution is for all Americans to "pay", fork-over, or whatever you want to call it, a large percentage of their income to a kind Uncle who cares for them better than they could have kept their own money to care for themselves.
Not really -- I mean, of what we pay in taxes, the vast majority of it goes to the defense budget, to infrastructure, and, of course, to "pork." Only a piece of it goes to the maintenance of a social safety net.
I see the majority of the hard working American people struggling under an unfair tax burden.
I don't... I see America having among the cheapest taxes in the industrialized world, and Americans growing fat and lazy in their prosperity. I write this to you on a computer, from a home with central heat and air, two cars in the driveway, and disposable income to spend on the movies, books, and dinner "out"... yet I would be grouped in the "lower" middle class economically speaking.
I also know that the American people are more than willing to help the less fortunate who need help.
Yet, here as elsewhere, there are millions without medical insurance, millions homeless, and millions starving... And there were also before the New Deal... when theoretically people with much lower tax burdens would have been "growing the economy" and voluntarily aiding those who had legitimate need... Yet, we are more prosperous now... and a lot more elderly are able to get medicine, a lot more poor are able to get housing... Unfortunately, for many of us - probably a majority - our "volunteer spirit" tends to dissipate just after the debate about lowering taxes.
"And, I also have a moderate conservative fiscal viewpoint.." That is a joke, right?
I understand that "moderate" and "conservative" don't really go together too much in this country any more... but that is my fiscal position. I don't believe in massive debt... I don't want outrageous taxes - I don't want us to become like France - I do believe in cutting pork and military spending, and re-working our entitlement spending to make that money work smarter... I said I'm not 100% behind Clinton's welfare reforms, but I do believe it is a step in the right direction... More money spent on education and insurance will mean more people able to survive on their own without direct handouts... I believe FDR's New Deal was a great template to build on, not a burden to be shaken off. I don't think the middle class should take a tax increase - which means, also, that the wealthiest shouldn't take a huge cut... And that brings us back to the "FairTax"... Under it, the wealthiest would cut their share of the tax burden drastically... Someone is going to pay for it (or else, we'll have to stop having expeditionary wars and building highways)... Who will pay the wealthy's share for them? Real world - you & me.
You are concerned about the middle class tax burden. You are concerned about the needs of the underclass. Good... Seriously, do you think that Neal Boortz, whose philosophy is "save the rich first" will re-write the tax code in a way favorable to the middle and underclasses? Do you think that eliminating the estate tax will help the middle class, who doesn't pay it? I don't. The FairTax, like most far-right economic policy, is an effort to shift the tax burden off of Enron and Wal-Mart, and on to Joe Sixpack. It's an effort to change the terms of the debate - from, how should we spend the revenue we get from our cheap tax rates: military or education, corporate hand-outs or healthcare; to how can we eliminate this terrible burden of taxes, and why should we care whether we, as a society, take care of our least fortunate? Can't a few volunteers and philanthropists do that for us?
|
|
Posted by smijer on October 26, 2005 07:47 AM Link to comment |
Not meaning to insult you or anyone else, but in reality even FDR did not intend for his New Deal to become a way of life. He meant it for a recovery period to help overcome the stock market crash. Once Americans were 'back on their feet', even he expected the government programs to be ended. Instead, politician saw a good thing for themselves and, yes, some Americans liked the handouts. You do not give statistics, so I won't argue about the percentages on where our tax $ are spent.
The following website has some useful information and is apparently pretty non-partisan.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/
It is my belief that you, and others on the web who are soaking up left-wing propaganda and then repeating it on your website would do well to find sources who are not bought and paid for by men like Soros. Also, I would like for you to actually debate the proposals made in the fair tax bill and explained in Boortz book. We all know what the propaganda mills say, but I have yet to find anyone who will look at the actual proposals and give logical arguments against what is being proposed. To buy into the opponents of the bill, you have to accept the generalizations that are being used rather than true statistics that can be proven. I am sure that you have read Boortz's book and you know that the amount of revenue provided will be basically the same. American's will still pay taxes. As for how the taxes are used, that will still be determined by elected officials.
|
|
Posted by Whitestone on October 26, 2005 07:00 PM Link to comment |
