Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, April 15, 2009
Economy Tonight’s Public Teabagging
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM
The national teabagging movement will come to a head tonight when conservatives stage an anti-tax “Tea Party” at Westlake Park beginning around 6 p.m. The protesters, who held events today around the country, repeatedly called themselves teabaggers, harking back to the colonial Boston Tea Party patriots who tossed tea into the harbor to protest England's taxation without representation. Organizers expect 500 to 1000 teabaggers—possibly dressed in Boston-Tea-Party-era themed minute man hats and ruffled cuffs—to protest the federal government’s bank bailouts and stimulus plan. Never mind that stimulus money, unlike the taxes collected by mean ol' England, is used right here in America.
“One of our goals is to simply to raise the enthusiasm and awareness of people who describe themselves as fiscal conservatives or those who don’t think that expanding the role of the federal government will be effective in curbing the recession,” says Conor McNassar, spokesman for the event. It’s being organized by Keli Carender, McNassar's wife, who blogs under the name Liberty Belle for Redistributing Knowledge. They believe that Obama will inflate federal spending by pushing a second stimulus bill, bailing out more banks, and catapulting the national debt over $3 trillion.
But the “fiscal conservatives” seem unconcerned about that fact that (a) spending grew enormously under “fiscally conservative” presidents before Obama, (b) the Iraq war was a ginormous federal expenditure that has done diddly good for the economy, or (c) Obama’s been in office for less than three months and the bailouts began under Bush.
“I haven’t heard any definite denunciation of Iraq war spending,” says McNassar. “They are focused on powers not enumerated to the federal government by the Constitution—not social programs or buying stakes in banks.” He says that rather than fund a stimulus package (he argues the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression), the federal government should allow banks and businesses to fail.
So why protest federal spending when Obama is in power rather than Bush’s wasteful federal spending for the previous eight years?
“People always protest actions that don’t fit with their political ideology,” says McNassar. “By the same measure I’m sure folks wouldn’t have had war protests if there were a war to stop the genocide in Darfur.”
When asked if he understood what teabagging was, McNassar said, "I guess I don't understand the connotation of that." A few moments later, after an awkward pause, he said, "No, I got you. I think it’s hilarious."
Paul Constant are I on our way down to the Tea Party to witness the imminent forcible teabagging of bystanders in Westlake Park.
1
First it was that 2M4M bizniss, now it's nationwide teabagging--as if some man's sweaty balls can solve all of our problems! They gotta pray to Jayzus to help them stop unleashing their preversions all over the country. Them teabaggers ARE GONNA FRY LIKE WITCHES!
PRAISE!
PRAISE!
2
Carender is McNassar's fiance, not his wife. They're getting married on July 4. Michelle Malkin credits Carender with starting the protest movement, although Carender sensibly themed her original protest around pork.
The teabag thing makes no sense whatsoever. Not only does it give rise to unfortunate signs when used in a verb form, it also is trying to draw on a time in American history when Americans were being taxed without representation. Evidently the tea partiers can't tell the difference between "My guy lost" and "I didn't get to vote at all." Given the inability to make that distinction, anyone surprised by the overwhelming whiteness of these protests, even in areas with large black, Asian and Latino populations?
Also, anyone like McNassar who thinks that the New Deal prolonged the Depression and WWII is what saved us economically, need to read Shlaes's critics before swallowing (pun unintended) her story. Start here: http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?…
The teabag thing makes no sense whatsoever. Not only does it give rise to unfortunate signs when used in a verb form, it also is trying to draw on a time in American history when Americans were being taxed without representation. Evidently the tea partiers can't tell the difference between "My guy lost" and "I didn't get to vote at all." Given the inability to make that distinction, anyone surprised by the overwhelming whiteness of these protests, even in areas with large black, Asian and Latino populations?
Also, anyone like McNassar who thinks that the New Deal prolonged the Depression and WWII is what saved us economically, need to read Shlaes's critics before swallowing (pun unintended) her story. Start here: http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?…
4
Hey Dom: Let me know if you run into Thomas Lipton who incorporated the Lipton Tea Company in 1915. Lipton Tea patented a novel four-sided tea bag in 1952 called the flo-thru tea bag.
And really, isn't that what tea bagging is all about: flo-thru?
And really, isn't that what tea bagging is all about: flo-thru?
5
This "New Deal prolonged the Depression" meme they've been pushing is hilarious. It's true because they say it is! I guess banking on people being unfamiliar with history is always a safe bet, nearly as safe as banking on people having a murky grasp of economics. McNassar's endorsement of expedient hypocrisy is a nice touch -- he's all but saying outright that the stated point of these astroturf protests is pure window-dressing. Of course they didn't protest Bush or Reagan's profligate deficit spending! Only an idiot would believe that these protests are about fiscal policy and not just sour grapes because they lost an election.
Rich people asking the working class to stage a "revolution" on their behalf so they can keep their taxes at an all-time low while the government goes broke, and putting on powdered wigs and three-cornered hats to do it. Pure political theater.
Rich people asking the working class to stage a "revolution" on their behalf so they can keep their taxes at an all-time low while the government goes broke, and putting on powdered wigs and three-cornered hats to do it. Pure political theater.
6
If counter protestors were really well organized, they'd get a bunch of muscular hotties down to Westlake and have them parade around in nothing but banana hammocks.
7
Oh, I second that @6.
But I'm glad to see the right wing adopting this strategy of ruining your credibility with ill-thought-out, ill-attended protests that make your own side look bad. Go to it! I hope they smash in a bunch of windows.
But I'm glad to see the right wing adopting this strategy of ruining your credibility with ill-thought-out, ill-attended protests that make your own side look bad. Go to it! I hope they smash in a bunch of windows.
9
Bush did push the deficit up and Conservatives resented it. The GOP lost Congress and many Conservative Republicans think it was a deserved loss, if the GOP is going to spend like Tip O'Neil democrats we might as well have the real thing.
However Obama is pushing the deficit to stratospheric levels. And the lapdog media is playing nice.
The biggest reason for the teabagging is to organize community groups for future efforts. Like Prop 8 mobilized and organized and created new alliances among Conservatives in California for future efforts.
This is a first step in pulling the GOP back toward it's Conservative values.
Only a first step.
It's not so much about taxes as it is about 2012.
However Obama is pushing the deficit to stratospheric levels. And the lapdog media is playing nice.
The biggest reason for the teabagging is to organize community groups for future efforts. Like Prop 8 mobilized and organized and created new alliances among Conservatives in California for future efforts.
This is a first step in pulling the GOP back toward it's Conservative values.
Only a first step.
It's not so much about taxes as it is about 2012.
10
@6,7 -- oh man, is that hilarious, the idea of organizing a simultaneous flashmob protest that has nothing to do with anything in particular. Something nonsensical and confounding, but raucous, would be great.
11
I saw a few of them interviewed on the news, and they're terribly, terribly confused and ill-informed people. PLEASE let's start funding public education again.
16
Obviously the Log Cabin Republicans were not asked to help, because queers do theater (political AND otherwise) so much better than this...
17
@7 Yes, by all means, get your craziest folks out there in front of the cameras, and just keep pushing the Middle of the Country (ya know, the folks who decide national elections) toward the Middle-to-Left...
19
I'm there right now, seems like there's more signs than people.
Some the good ones:
"somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its idiot"
"ayn rand was right!"
"I shaved my balls for this?!" held by some tween girls
Some the good ones:
"somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its idiot"
"ayn rand was right!"
"I shaved my balls for this?!" held by some tween girls
20
@19, that balls sign (and a crystal pepsi one) were being held by some 20-somethings who eventfully got bored (I think) and gave them to the girls. I sent a photo of the signs to slogtip an hour+ ago when the original holders were still in place. They were about the only visible "anti-protesters".
21
Hey, cut these tea-baggers some sac -- er, slack. They've been keeping their mouths shut for eight years, caressing the nuts that were the Bush Administration.
Now, all these years later, they've gagged on their own silence and are taking it out on the Democrats.
Now, all these years later, they've gagged on their own silence and are taking it out on the Democrats.
25
Who's cleaning up all those teabags you left all over the street, you jerks? (and how are they getting paid?)
27
I wish these dim bulbs would realize that just because they feel they're being taxed unfairly, and they know someone who knows someone who read Thomas Paine a while ago for their high school civics class (or at least the Cliff Notes), doesn't mean jack shit. And that they'd shut the hell up. C'mon, don't even try to pull some parallel to the American Revolution out of your ass!!
28
there's got to be a way to reach these people. if this is the core of the conservative movement, stupid selfish frightened old not-rich white people, if you peel off 20% of them with a couple factoids FOX won't show them, it could make the GOP disintegrate.
then the democrats could disintegrate and lefties could stop holding their nose every time they vote.
then the democrats could disintegrate and lefties could stop holding their nose every time they vote.
29
I really don't understand the tea party idea. Obama increased spending but he also cut taxes, right? If our taxes go down, why are these guys protesting with tea bags?
30
Aw, you guys are just jealous, is all.
It's a beautiful day, people are outside, and there's a good old fashioned American protest going on.
Sure, it's just the Right-Wing Pep Rally 2009, but at least it's been civil (knock on wood) and not getting out of hand. Throw in a six pack of beer and maybe some fireworks and it would just feel like an angry redneck Fourth of July.
Let them get it out of their system. It'll make about as much of a difference as all those war protests did.
Patti at #11 called it. We need better education in this country. Some of the stuff they're saying is just moronic.
It's a beautiful day, people are outside, and there's a good old fashioned American protest going on.
Sure, it's just the Right-Wing Pep Rally 2009, but at least it's been civil (knock on wood) and not getting out of hand. Throw in a six pack of beer and maybe some fireworks and it would just feel like an angry redneck Fourth of July.
Let them get it out of their system. It'll make about as much of a difference as all those war protests did.
Patti at #11 called it. We need better education in this country. Some of the stuff they're saying is just moronic.
31
So -- how long before these deficits bring us back to good old stagflation? I don't think it will take until a Republican takes over, like in the 70s. In fact, it may not take until the 2010 election -- but it might hold off until the runup to 2012.
I'm thinking Obama is a one-term President, especially if the Republicans nominate Romney.
I'm thinking Obama is a one-term President, especially if the Republicans nominate Romney.
32
"Never have so many protested that which they do not understand. And never have so many been exploited by the greedy few."
34
@31: Where is that being argued?
I'm clueless on the long-term picture of what's going on.
Sometimes, though, I fear that any wisdom from the financial conservatives is being ignored, because the social conservatives are making too much noise.
Other than ripping on Republicans for this pep-rally, who here actually understands this issue of the deficit, the debt, and the value of the dollar?
I'm clueless on the long-term picture of what's going on.
Sometimes, though, I fear that any wisdom from the financial conservatives is being ignored, because the social conservatives are making too much noise.
Other than ripping on Republicans for this pep-rally, who here actually understands this issue of the deficit, the debt, and the value of the dollar?
35
They're protesting deficits AND taxes. Which is stupid; there is no way to close the deficit without some new taxes. And some of them are protesting the Wall Street bailout, which was a Bush program. And some of them are just protesting spending in general, without having a clue what that spending is. But all of them are super-pissed at the stimulus items.
The deal is, stimulus works. No rational economist disagrees. A jolt of government spending does, in fact, jump-start the economy right when it needs it most. Despite what you hear from the kooks, this isn't controversial. Neither is it controversial to point out the obvious converse: slashing spending now would dump the entire world into Great Depression II.
Obama still has a MUCH better shot at closing the deficit eventually, after the economy recovers, than George Bush ever did, because he's going to raise taxes to cover what we spend. Let me be clear: only shitheads think Obama's tax hikes on the very rich, to levels far below where they were under that commie Reagan, are going to hurt job growth.
These policies are reasonable and prudent. They are supported by the best economic minds in the world, including plenty of reasonable people on the right (what few are left). There are plenty of caveats and nitpicks and disputes with various minor details; the Obama program is far from perfect. But it's the best we've got.
Because that's the other thing about these idiots: they don't have a program. They don't have a plan. They don't have anything except some stupidly wrong ideas. The Republicans in Congress are completely hopeless; they have no idea what to say or do about anything except whine about how no one is listening to them. The GOP is apparently stone dead.
The deal is, stimulus works. No rational economist disagrees. A jolt of government spending does, in fact, jump-start the economy right when it needs it most. Despite what you hear from the kooks, this isn't controversial. Neither is it controversial to point out the obvious converse: slashing spending now would dump the entire world into Great Depression II.
Obama still has a MUCH better shot at closing the deficit eventually, after the economy recovers, than George Bush ever did, because he's going to raise taxes to cover what we spend. Let me be clear: only shitheads think Obama's tax hikes on the very rich, to levels far below where they were under that commie Reagan, are going to hurt job growth.
These policies are reasonable and prudent. They are supported by the best economic minds in the world, including plenty of reasonable people on the right (what few are left). There are plenty of caveats and nitpicks and disputes with various minor details; the Obama program is far from perfect. But it's the best we've got.
Because that's the other thing about these idiots: they don't have a program. They don't have a plan. They don't have anything except some stupidly wrong ideas. The Republicans in Congress are completely hopeless; they have no idea what to say or do about anything except whine about how no one is listening to them. The GOP is apparently stone dead.
36
@34: Do I understand all of it? No. What I see, though, from my layman's perspective, is that on the face of it, Keynesian stimulus makes a lof of very sensible points that are simply not even being addressed by its opponents.
As far as I can see, the "wisdom" of the fiscal conservatives consists of two main points:
1) All things being equal, the public sector should collect and distribute as few funds as possible, and only enough to accomplish its missions
2) Dramatic economic growth and shrinkage are both natural and self-correcting elements of the capitalist system, and intervention only works to destroy the self-corrective mechanims
The first point is something that I can respect in principle, with the caveat that I will most likely disagree with the typical fiscal conservative over the breadth of the federal government's mission.
The second point I find much less convincing. The Keynesians point out rightly that economic contraction provides individuals with a strong motive to work against the collective economic good (i.e., by hoarding and making bank runs), thus contributing to further economic contraction. The tea partiers and their intellectual sponsors do not even respond to this point, instead just repeating the same old cliches about "out of control" spending.
So no, I do not claim to be all-knowing. But those who bring nothing to the table hardly deserve any respect.
As far as I can see, the "wisdom" of the fiscal conservatives consists of two main points:
1) All things being equal, the public sector should collect and distribute as few funds as possible, and only enough to accomplish its missions
2) Dramatic economic growth and shrinkage are both natural and self-correcting elements of the capitalist system, and intervention only works to destroy the self-corrective mechanims
The first point is something that I can respect in principle, with the caveat that I will most likely disagree with the typical fiscal conservative over the breadth of the federal government's mission.
The second point I find much less convincing. The Keynesians point out rightly that economic contraction provides individuals with a strong motive to work against the collective economic good (i.e., by hoarding and making bank runs), thus contributing to further economic contraction. The tea partiers and their intellectual sponsors do not even respond to this point, instead just repeating the same old cliches about "out of control" spending.
So no, I do not claim to be all-knowing. But those who bring nothing to the table hardly deserve any respect.
37
"Never mind that stimulus money, unlike the taxes collected by mean ol' England, is used right here in America."
Sorry to tweak you, guys, but the taxes Britain threw on its colonies WERE to be used in America - namely to pay for the occupying army left over from the French and Indian war. The taxes on tea and stamps (effectively on documents and printing) were geared to impact the wealthier colonials as opposed to a tax across the board.
Just something to think about.
Sorry to tweak you, guys, but the taxes Britain threw on its colonies WERE to be used in America - namely to pay for the occupying army left over from the French and Indian war. The taxes on tea and stamps (effectively on documents and printing) were geared to impact the wealthier colonials as opposed to a tax across the board.
Just something to think about.
38
Fnarf -- I'm not all that impressed with "the best economic minds in the world" right now. Unless they were clearly predicting that massively leveraging crappy mortgages would crash the house. Every economist who didn't should go find another field.
Obama has crafted a set of new programs that will *not* throw stimulus money out quickly now but *will* set up a wide range of new infinite-term programs that will be damn hard to kill -- permanently increasing the size of the American government and decreasing the chance for actual recovery. Sucks for us but great for government employee unions. Gosh, you almost might think they were major contributors to his election.
Obama has crafted a set of new programs that will *not* throw stimulus money out quickly now but *will* set up a wide range of new infinite-term programs that will be damn hard to kill -- permanently increasing the size of the American government and decreasing the chance for actual recovery. Sucks for us but great for government employee unions. Gosh, you almost might think they were major contributors to his election.
39
There was also a protest in Bellevue. I honked in support, because the signs I saw seemed reasonable. Anti-bailout and such. Now I want to publicly state "I take the honk back".
Thank you.
Thank you.
40
If the Republican party were still actually conservative, that is to say they really believed in balanced budgets and paying for what you spend and thinking about the long-term effect of government spending, they might have something to add to the debate. But those sorts of Republicans went out of fashion with Reagan and many of them voted for Obama in the last election.
If Republicans really want to position themselves as the financially responsible party, they have to come up with some answer to the obvious question: If you're categorically opposed to taxes, how do you propose that the government pay for anything? How can it finance its massive debt, run up primarily under Republican administrations? In short, how can you believe you should have a government without believing that you should pay for it? The Tim Eymans have taken over, and although they've undoubtably brought a lot of these disgruntled, pudgy, middle-aged white dudes that we see in these pictures on board with their anti-tax populism, they represent a fundamentally empty ideology. They only know what they're against. They are angry about having to pay their share, because somebody somewhere might be getting a better deal than them.
Outside of whining, they have nothing to add to the debate.
If Republicans really want to position themselves as the financially responsible party, they have to come up with some answer to the obvious question: If you're categorically opposed to taxes, how do you propose that the government pay for anything? How can it finance its massive debt, run up primarily under Republican administrations? In short, how can you believe you should have a government without believing that you should pay for it? The Tim Eymans have taken over, and although they've undoubtably brought a lot of these disgruntled, pudgy, middle-aged white dudes that we see in these pictures on board with their anti-tax populism, they represent a fundamentally empty ideology. They only know what they're against. They are angry about having to pay their share, because somebody somewhere might be getting a better deal than them.
Outside of whining, they have nothing to add to the debate.
41
@40 Re: "Outside of whining, they have nothing to add to the debate. "
Well, they also add some hilarious unintentional sexual imagery. Give them that, at least.
Well, they also add some hilarious unintentional sexual imagery. Give them that, at least.
42
Wow... you guys are awesome. That's a lot of cool thinking points. Seriously, thanks.
It's plenty for me to chew on before I can call you commies or socialists or any of the other popular names.
It's a bit irritating how so much of this gets distilled by major media into short talking points that don't so much reflect reality, but whatever partisan bias the speaker suffers from.
In the end, I'm just glad the "protest" was carried out in a mostly civil manner. Good show, wingnuts. Good show.
It's plenty for me to chew on before I can call you commies or socialists or any of the other popular names.
It's a bit irritating how so much of this gets distilled by major media into short talking points that don't so much reflect reality, but whatever partisan bias the speaker suffers from.
In the end, I'm just glad the "protest" was carried out in a mostly civil manner. Good show, wingnuts. Good show.
43
@41 How can we promote the use of the term "snowballing" and try to get people to use that in reference to, say... steadily growing things going downhill...
I would fucking love to hear about Republicans holding a snowballing demonstration.
I would fucking love to hear about Republicans holding a snowballing demonstration.
44
@40:
I think, if you were to ask any typical modern-day member of the GOP what their ultimate goal is, they'd answer, "a government as small as possible", which has always been the general platform of the Republican Party.
It's just that contemporary GOPers have advocated very different methods for achieving that traditional goal. In the old days, government would be kept small by adhering to a "pay as you go" philosophy, that is, government should only be large enough to afford those essential activities for which it could pay on a zero-deficit basis.
Since Reagan took office, however, the philosophy seems to have been "run up federal deficits by a combination of spending increases - primarily on the military and GOP sponsored "pork projects" - and tax cuts for high income brackets, in an effort to bankrupt government so it had no choice but to undertake massive spending cuts, while at the same time lining the pockets of wealthy contributors. I suppose the idea was that, if government was saddled with huge debt, it would have to remain small so as to maximize the amount of its income going to service the debt, rather than going into expanding programs, while the further enriched elites would be able to keep the engine of the economy chugging along, and just enough of the sops would "trickle down" to the plebes to keep them from storming the castles or whatever.
I fear most of the people showing up for these inane rallies don't really have a clue about any of this. So far as they're concerned "no government" is preferable to any government that doesn't allow them to keep 100% of their earnings. I don't know if they give much thought to how things like roads and infrastructure, utilities and public services, et al actually get funded, and I'm not sure they really care - just so long as the bill isn't paid out of THEIR pockets.
I believe the old-timey term for this was "freeloader", that is, someone who wants all the benefit at none of the cost.
Which is pretty ironic, considering how much they despise the bugbear of "Socialism"...
More...
I think, if you were to ask any typical modern-day member of the GOP what their ultimate goal is, they'd answer, "a government as small as possible", which has always been the general platform of the Republican Party.
It's just that contemporary GOPers have advocated very different methods for achieving that traditional goal. In the old days, government would be kept small by adhering to a "pay as you go" philosophy, that is, government should only be large enough to afford those essential activities for which it could pay on a zero-deficit basis.
Since Reagan took office, however, the philosophy seems to have been "run up federal deficits by a combination of spending increases - primarily on the military and GOP sponsored "pork projects" - and tax cuts for high income brackets, in an effort to bankrupt government so it had no choice but to undertake massive spending cuts, while at the same time lining the pockets of wealthy contributors. I suppose the idea was that, if government was saddled with huge debt, it would have to remain small so as to maximize the amount of its income going to service the debt, rather than going into expanding programs, while the further enriched elites would be able to keep the engine of the economy chugging along, and just enough of the sops would "trickle down" to the plebes to keep them from storming the castles or whatever.
I fear most of the people showing up for these inane rallies don't really have a clue about any of this. So far as they're concerned "no government" is preferable to any government that doesn't allow them to keep 100% of their earnings. I don't know if they give much thought to how things like roads and infrastructure, utilities and public services, et al actually get funded, and I'm not sure they really care - just so long as the bill isn't paid out of THEIR pockets.
I believe the old-timey term for this was "freeloader", that is, someone who wants all the benefit at none of the cost.
Which is pretty ironic, considering how much they despise the bugbear of "Socialism"...
45
These Tea Baggers
That you spit on.
As they try to change the World.
Are immune to your consultations.
They're quite aware, what they're going through...
That you spit on.
As they try to change the World.
Are immune to your consultations.
They're quite aware, what they're going through...
46
Here is how socialism works:
In America the bottom 50% by income pay 3% (yes, three) of federal income taxes.
The top 1% pays 40%.
The top 5% pay 60%.
Are the bottom half less blessed to be Americans?
Why do they pay virtually no Federal taxes?
In America the bottom 50% by income pay 3% (yes, three) of federal income taxes.
The top 1% pays 40%.
The top 5% pay 60%.
Are the bottom half less blessed to be Americans?
Why do they pay virtually no Federal taxes?
47
#46: because the majority of the top 1% and top 5% (of which I'm included) make their money off the work of your "bottom half"
Duh.
GFY
Duh.
GFY
48
@46,
You don't know what socialism is. It's government ownership of the means of production. Look it up.
If your problem is with having a particular kind of tax (federal individual income tax, which of course leaves out all sales, property, excise, corporate, and FICA taxes) draw most of its revenue from, shocker, the people who have the most income, perhaps you should come up with a word that actually means that. Using a word that doesn't mean that makes you look that much more stupid.
You don't know what socialism is. It's government ownership of the means of production. Look it up.
If your problem is with having a particular kind of tax (federal individual income tax, which of course leaves out all sales, property, excise, corporate, and FICA taxes) draw most of its revenue from, shocker, the people who have the most income, perhaps you should come up with a word that actually means that. Using a word that doesn't mean that makes you look that much more stupid.
49
Oh, and if the top 1% want the rest of the country to get more concerned about high federal income taxes, maybe they should pay their employees enough that this is a concern. The "lucky duckies" who make so little money that they don't pay much federal income tax would be happy to start bearing that burden once they have the income level to do it.
50
Wait, is this the SAME 1% that funnels tens of billions of dollars annually into offshore tax shelters in order to AVOID paying federal income taxes?
How terribly patriotic of them, don't you think?
How terribly patriotic of them, don't you think?
52
@46
You're talking only about federal income tax, which conservatives always do to make their misleading points.
Please don't ignore the payroll tax, which is taxed on EVERY DOLLAR earned by the working class (the bottom 90% or so of our workers, roughly), but on only two dollars in five earned by those making over $250K (the top 5%), and only one dollar in a ten of someone who makes a $1 million annually!
In addition, don't ignore excise taxes, sales taxes, fees, state taxes, and son on. Our national tax burden overall is flat, not progressive. Here's a nice back-of-the-envelope calculation of it all by kevin drum:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20…
You're talking only about federal income tax, which conservatives always do to make their misleading points.
Please don't ignore the payroll tax, which is taxed on EVERY DOLLAR earned by the working class (the bottom 90% or so of our workers, roughly), but on only two dollars in five earned by those making over $250K (the top 5%), and only one dollar in a ten of someone who makes a $1 million annually!
In addition, don't ignore excise taxes, sales taxes, fees, state taxes, and son on. Our national tax burden overall is flat, not progressive. Here's a nice back-of-the-envelope calculation of it all by kevin drum:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20…
53
52
If by 'payroll tax' you are referring to Social Security that is not a tax, it is a trust fund- you good Liberals should know that.
If by 'payroll tax' you are referring to Social Security that is not a tax, it is a trust fund- you good Liberals should know that.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (55) RSS