Republican Ben Stein: "It's Time to Raise My Taxes"

[Bandit]

Key paragraphs in bold.



In today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/business/10every.html?ref=business) ...

A Familiar Tax Tune, but It’s Not Mine

By BEN STEIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=BEN%20STEIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=BEN%20STEIN&inline=nyt-per)
A FEW days ago, I saw Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per) on television saying something I had heard a few times before. Basically, he said that if you want to have your taxes raised, don’t vote for him.

Let me start by saying that I am a huge fan of Senator McCain. He’s got guts. He had a harrowing five years in captivity for his country. His son serves in Iraq and the senator never talks about it.

And, I do not want my taxes raised. I already pay a staggering amount of tax and I don’t care for it. In fact, I would like to pay no tax at all. I could have so much more to prepare for onrushing old age.

But the unhappy fact is that it’s necessary to raise my taxes and the taxes of all upper-income Americans. (I do wish, however, that “upper income” started just a dollar above me.)

The sad truth of the last two two-term Republican presidents is that their economic premise, the key part of their economic game plan, simply has not done what it’s supposed to do.

That is, cutting taxes, especially on upper-income Americans, does not generate so much economic activity that it replaces all the lost I.R.S. take and then some. At least those have been the results so far. When Ronald Reagan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ronald_wilson_reagan/index.html?inline=nyt-per) lowered taxes, personal income tax revenue stagnated from 1982 to 1984. Now, you may say that revenue rose sharply after that. So maybe that was a mixed result.

But when President Bush drastically cut taxes after he was first elected, the I.R.S. take from individual income taxes fell and did not recover its 2001 level until 2006.A conservative purist might rejoin here that it would be fine if income tax receipts fell, because we would then have a smaller government and a freer society.

That would be nice, but far from true. Instead, government just keeps growing. Government spending grew dramatically under President Reagan, very nearly doubling, and leaving us with a federal deficit vastly bigger than the one he inherited. I know that a large chunk of that increase was to rebuild the military. I heartily approved of it.

But if you want to have a military buildup — and we need one now, desperately — that’s usually a reason to raise taxes, not cut them.

Under the current president, we have had the same story. As income tax receipts fell, military and other spending rose rapidly. Again, this spending was justified as far as I’m concerned. But we have been left with immense deficits and a doubled national debt as President Bush enters his final months in office.

Mr. McCain wants to extend many of President Bush’s income tax cuts and to reduce taxes on corporations. But the facts of life are that we have a large budget deficit, even though some other nations have even larger deficits as percentages of gross domestic product. We have to pay interest on it. As a people and a nation, we owe this money in large part to foreigners — and that can have political implications. The facts of life are that federal spending is almost all untouchable: the military, Social Security, Medicare (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), interest on the debt, pensions. The discretionary part is tiny.

Every category of federal spending is likely to grow. This means that if we don’t raise taxes, if we keep doing what we’re doing, the immense deficits and debt will not go away — and will probably grow.

The question is simply this: Do we want to step up to the plate like responsible people — I hate to say this, but the last responsible people who actually did this were named Bill and Bob (Clinton and Rubin) — and shoulder our responsibilities? Or do we just kick the can down the road a bit and leave the mess for our children and their children?

And if we do raise taxes, should people who are barely getting by pay them or should people who are getting by very nicely pay them?
I don’t like taxing rich people or anyone I like. But our government — run by the people we elected — needs the revenue. Do we pay it or do we make our children pay it? Dwight D. Eisenhower (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/dwight_david_eisenhower/index.html?inline=nyt-per) — and Bill Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) — knew the answer: You behave responsibly and balance the budget except in rare circumstances.

Somehow, Republicans (and I am a Republican) have forgotten this basic lesson of adulthood. Maybe Senator McCain is grown up enough to remind us of the real urgency of personal and national responsibility. Or maybe not.

[almostlive]

Once again, you can WIN BEN STEIN'S MONEY!

[s'news]

Ben was hypnotized by The New York Times.

[Bandit]

Ben was hypnotized by The New York Times. I'm betting a few colons in the McCain campaign are not happy about this.

[Union Label]

John McCain agrees with Ben Stein...or at least he did back in 2001 (http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter11.html)

From the article referenced above:
On May 27, McCain made one of his boldest moves: He cast one of only two Republican votes against Bush's $1.35 trillion tax-relief package, saying the cuts benefited the wealthy at the expense of middle-class Americans.

[Pro]

Nobody is arguing for a draconian tax hike on the wealthy. Just the same levels that they were paying in the 1990's....which had already been cut substantially in the 1980's.

And WHY were those tax rates cut in the early part of this decade? The Clinton Administration budget surplus. Which no longer exists. That's why the cuts were made temporary, so they could be adjusted later for budgetary changes.

But some people won't be happy until their tax rate is 0%. Their tax rate could be 5% and they'd still scream bloody murder. And even if it did go to 0%, they'd want a rebate.

[Diplomat]

To quote a wise man, "If 10 percent if good enough for Jesus, it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam."

:)

[Lazlo Toth]

I believe there is nothing to stop Ben Stein from sending additional money to the federal government as a gift. I would urge him to send at least to the level of what he thinks his taxes should be and leave the rest of us alone.

[Diplomat]

I believe there is nothing to stop Ben Stein from sending additional money to the federal government as a gift. I would urge him to send at least to the level of what he thinks his taxes should be and leave the rest of us alone.

Amen!

[Kace]

And because of this...we should vote for Barack Obama. :rockon:

[Pro]

I believe there is nothing to stop Ben Stein from sending additional money to the federal government as a gift. I would urge him to send at least to the level of what he thinks his taxes should be and leave the rest of us alone.


Amen!

Bulls*it.

[Diplomat]

Bulls*it.

Your tolerance for differing opinions is duly noted.

[Union Label]

To quote a wise man, "If 10 percent if good enough for Jesus, it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam."

:)

I classify Ray Stevens as more of a wise guy than a wise man.

[Pro]

Your tolerance for differing opinions is duly noted.


Does "tolerance" = not disagreeing?

It would seem so with you.

[Diplomat]

I classify Ray Stevens as more of a wise guy than a wise man.

I was thinking of the man who wrote it, Hal Coleman, who is indeed a wise man. Ray Stevens is a pretty smart fellow, too.

;)

[Diplomat]

Does "tolerance" = not disagreeing?

It would seem so with you.

No, and you know it.

Instead of simply stating your disagreement, you tossed out a nasty comment. If someone did that to you, you'd be as hysterical as Albert Gore speaking to a hate group.

[s'news]

I believe there is nothing to stop Ben Stein from sending additional money to the federal government as a gift. I would urge him to send at least to the level of what he thinks his taxes should be and leave the rest of us alone.

That'll only save you money, Laz, if you are in Stein's tax bracket.

[Diggin' Bear]

I need some answers, please:

If we don't raise taxes, how will we pay for this enormous deficit the administration came foward with last week?

Isn't it logical to think that if we had the properly sized tax base in place already, we could cover that deficit?

Isn't a huge government deficit at bad thing?

Isn't enlarging a deficit on a continual basis bad for the economy?

Analogy: If your business was running in the red continually, and didn't keep up with costs, would your creditors continue to float you loans?

Don't get me wrong: I hate handing over part of the salary I make, but somebody's gotta pay for our common defense against terrorists, the infrastructure that's apparently crumbling, and yes, even for the increased costs we all see in our private worlds. How do we do it?

[Pro]

Instead of simply stating your disagreement, you tossed out a nasty comment.

Why not? You do it all of the time.

[Union Label]

I need some answers, please:
Don't get me wrong: I hate handing over part of the salary I make, but somebody's gotta pay for our common defense against terrorists, the infrastructure that's apparently crumbling, and yes, even for the increased costs we all see in our private worlds. How do we do it?

How about getting rid of the tax shelters, tax credits and subsidies?

[Lazlo Toth]

That'll only save you money, Laz, if you are in Stein's tax bracket.

I would wish only to be at his income level and not in his tax bracket.

[Lazlo Toth]

Bulls*it.

I appreciate that instead of writing a lot of words as you usually do, you used just one word to summarize the quality of your thoughts. It's much more efficient than us having to wade through a bunch of your arguments in order to come to that conclusion on our own.

[Pro]

I appreciate that instead of writing a lot of words as you usually do, you used just one word to summarize the quality of your thoughts. It's much more efficient than us having to wade through a bunch of your arguments in order to come to that conclusion on our own.

If Dip can say he agrees with you by saying "Amen", then I can say I disagree with you buy also using one word. Fair is fair.

[Produce man]

Allow me.

Amen.

[Bandit]

I need some answers, please:

If we don't raise taxes, how will we pay for this enormous deficit the administration came foward with last week?

Isn't it logical to think that if we had the properly sized tax base in place already, we could cover that deficit?

Isn't a huge government deficit at bad thing?

Isn't enlarging a deficit on a continual basis bad for the economy?

Analogy: If your business was running in the red continually, and didn't keep up with costs, would your creditors continue to float you loans?

Don't get me wrong: I hate handing over part of the salary I make, but somebody's gotta pay for our common defense against terrorists, the infrastructure that's apparently crumbling, and yes, even for the increased costs we all see in our private worlds. How do we do it? Good questions all, DB. I think one of the big mistakes the Bush administration made was cutting taxes when we went to war. We had never done that before in the history of the country -- besides adding to our national debt, it pretty much isolated the sacrifices required in the Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan to the troops and their families.

All everyone else had to do was buy a sticker for their car and go to the mall.

Governments in general should run balanced budgets, except when the economy is struggling (when it is appropriate to run deficits in order to stimulate the economy).

[Lazlo Toth]

If Dip can say he agrees with you by saying "Amen", then I can say I disagree with you buy also using one word. Fair is fair.

Diplomat:

You should be flattered. Apparently Pro aspires to emulate you.

[Marty McFly]

Funny how Pro is can label those with opposing viewpoints as 'juvenile,' but when he calls someone an '*******' or retorts with 'bulls*it,' it's perfectly acceptable.

[buckpasser]

I believe there is nothing to stop Ben Stein from sending additional money to the federal government as a gift. I would urge him to send at least to the level of what he thinks his taxes should be and leave the rest of us alone.

Simply horrible.

Rather than defend Bush's fiscal policy, you do what Republicans have tried to do for seven years: personally attack those who they feel are critics. Never defend the policy, or idea.

We are a nation of laws. Stein is trying to change those laws by laying out an argument. Try it sometime, Repubs. Seriously. Many have argued the Laffer curve is played out. Not on talk radio, but among economists. Reagan's cuts added revenue, as did Kennedy's. Bush's likely did not. Also, Stein's take on spending is realistic.

Republicans need to explain their philosophy on spending, and taxes. The typical Republican take, instead, is to whine about Stein.

Hey Laz, why don't you add your share of Bush's deficit to your taxes this year! DERRR HERRRRR!!! I AM THE WINNER!!! Can I get an "Amen"?!?

[theultimatetruth]

I think we all know that the real problem is government fraud, waste, and abuse of OUR funds. If we (families & businesses) conducted our financial matters like the government, we'd be broke and/or out of business in a short time.

The whole system is a sham anyways, as there is not enough "real" assets to back up our paper money. Need to spend billions on a war!?, just print up more paper (money).

At this point in our history, I don't know how we stop the ridiculous fraud, waste, and abuse shown by so many of our so-called government "leaders." Just as an example, how many billions have been wasted on "Homeland Security" and the TSA?

[Diplomat]

Funny how Pro is can label those with opposing viewpoints as 'juvenile,' but when he calls someone an '*******' or retorts with 'bulls*it,' it's perfectly acceptable.

Or how he apparently considers "Amen" a swear word since he's comparing my use of it to his use of the aforementioned oath.

[Lazlo Toth]

Simply horrible.

Rather than defend Bush's fiscal policy, you do what Republicans have tried to do for seven years: personally attack those who they feel are critics. Never defend the policy, or idea.

We are a nation of laws. Stein is trying to change those laws by laying out an argument. Try it sometime, Repubs. Seriously. Many have argued the Laffer curve is played out. Not on talk radio, but among economists. Reagan's cuts added revenue, as did Kennedy's. Bush's likely did not. Also, Stein's take on spending is realistic.

Republicans need to explain their philosophy on spending, and taxes. The typical Republican take, instead, is to whine about Stein.

Hey Laz, why don't you add your share of Bush's deficit to your taxes this year! DERRR HERRRRR!!! I AM THE WINNER!!! Can I get an "Amen"?!?

Wow. What a dilemma you must feel. You have to praise a Republican to criticize me. I feel for you.

[The Mockingbird]

The unfortunate problem with cutting people a check when the economic outlook is pessimistic, is that sane and sensible taxpayers will either use the money to pay down debt, or put it in a savings account in case of emergency. This kills economic stimulus effect.

Now, granted, you'll always have a segment of the population who gets money in hand and then spends it on trivial things (read: FEMA charge cards), but quite a lot of people are more sensible than you might think.

While we're on the topic of the economy, I thought I might pose a question for everyone still working as journalists: if public opinion affects spending, and spending is the primary piston in the engine of our consumer economy, how responsible are each of you for running the self-fufilling prophecies of economic doom? Simply put, the theory is that if enough people say the economy is bad enough times, people will stop spending, and, guess what, the economy is bad.

That question sounds loaded, but it does bear thought.

[22]

I agree with you, Mock. Some one asked me a good question the other day. Obvously, Obama makes people "feel" good. He offers change without being specific. If folks feel good, and just thinks things are better, will that be enough? Will a better attitude be enought to make the economy better?

[buckpasser]

Wow. What a dilemma you must feel. You have to praise a Republican to criticize me. I feel for you.

I am happy praise a conservative who can articulate what he believes at the expense of a Republican who votes based on what the other guy believes.

[Kace]

You have to praise a Republican...

Actually, I think Buckpasser's put Reagan over before.

[Lazlo Toth]

Actually, I think Buckpasser's put Reagan over before.

That's only because Reagan was once a Democrat.

[Kace]

While President?

[Diggin' Bear]

Jeeze, guys, I ask a few simple questions that I thought might be relevant, and you big thinkers are worried about whether Bucky praised a Republican before?

[wx or not]

Ben Stein is a bit off here. First of all, consider this: Were America the holder of a subprime mortgage, in danger of bankruptcy, what would you espouse?
1. Cut your expenses. When you have enough income for living expenses, then eliminate wasteful spending where possible. Live by frugal means, by any means necessary, until you have crawled from behind that "eight ball." 2. If no new income sources are foreseen, or you cannot envision obtaining further income increases, then revert to #1.
There is nothing wrong with the current system that a bit of frugality and wisdom cannot repair.

[Shot A Load]

It's a shame our elected officials don't follow that policy and it doesn't look like any future electees will either.

[Lazlo Toth]

Jeeze, guys, I ask a few simple questions that I thought might be relevant, and you big thinkers are worried about whether Bucky praised a Republican before?

Hey, we gotta have some fun.

[Lazlo Toth]

While President?
Doesn't matter.

[Pro]

Diplomat:

You should be flattered. Apparently Pro aspires to emulate you.

You don't get sarcasm, do you?

[Pro]

Funny how Pro is can label those with opposing viewpoints as 'juvenile,' but when he calls someone an '*******' or retorts with 'bulls*it,' it's perfectly acceptable.

Nor do you.

[Pro]

Or how he apparently considers "Amen" a swear word since he's comparing my use of it to his use of the aforementioned oath.

I don't label words, as such. A word is a word.

[Lazlo Toth]

You don't get sarcasm, do you?

Apparently you don't.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/KLN/SM120~National-Sarcasm-Society-Posters.jpg

[Clever Login Name]

Racists like Pro rarely appreciate sarcasm.

[Pro]

Apparently you don't.
Indeed, I do. That "book cover" is actually pretty funny.

[Lazlo Toth]

Indeed, I do. That "book cover" is actually pretty funny.

Actually, it's a metal sign. I have it up on my desk at work.

[Roy Hobbs]

His next show will be "Tax Ben Stein's Money"

[commercial hack]

I think wx or not has it right. Don't raise taxes,
CUT YOUR *****ING SPENDING!!!!

[Lazlo Toth]

And while I resonate with that sentiment .. .some 80% of the budget is already locked into mandated social programs and military spending.

[Pro]

I'm sure that felt good to type that.

The problem is that the country is divided on where to cut. Entitlements? Military spending? For everyone advocating cutting in either one of those areas, there is another person firmly opposed to it. And this is reflected in our elected representatives.

Democracy can be a b*tch sometimes.

[Diplomat]

And while I resonate with that sentiment .. .some 80% of the budget is already locked into mandated social programs and military spending.

Yes. It's time to change attitudes about spending and so-called "entitlements" across the board.

Marty is abolutely right.

[News Is Broken]

I'm sure that felt good to type that.

The problem is that the country is divided on where to cut. Entitlements? Military spending? For everyone advocating cutting in either one of those areas, there is another person firmly opposed to it. And this is reflected in our elected representatives.

Democracy can be a b*tch sometimes.

Come on, it can't be that hard. If we returned California, Arizona and Texas to Mexico and gave Manhattan back to the Indians, think of all the money THAT could save...

[commercial hack]

I'm sure that felt good to type that.

The problem is that the country is divided on where to cut. Entitlements? Military spending? For everyone advocating cutting in either one of those areas, there is another person firmly opposed to it. And this is reflected in our elected representatives.

Democracy can be a b*tch sometimes.


It did. They can find the money to cut.


p.s. We're not a Democracy. http://www.forum.exscn.net/images/smilies/boxing.gif

[Pro]

This a republic with democratic principles.

And "they can find the money to cut" is a very simplistic answer. Especially when you have 535 members of Congress with their own agendas. And a President with HIS own agenda. Under those circumstances...and that is a given....what would you do? Specifically?

[Produce man]

Cut entitlements.

That was easy.

[Pro]

Cut entitlements.

That was easy.

How are you going to do that with the Congress made up as it is? And will, in all liklihood, favor Democrats even more next year? One person - even the President - can't say "My will be done".

[Spike]

p.s. We're not a Democracy. http://www.forum.exscn.net/images/smilies/boxing.gif

Don't start that garbage. The country is a democracy. It's also a republic. The two are not mutually exclusive, as anybody who actually paid attention in high school government class would know.

[Diplomat]

It did. They can find the money to cut.


p.s. We're not a Democracy. http://www.forum.exscn.net/images/smilies/boxing.gif

Yes, across the board cuts. Perhaps another Grace Commission and this time, pay attention to what it recommends.

Good points, Hack.

[News Is Broken]

Don't start that garbage. The country is a democracy. It's also a republic. The two are not mutually exclusive, as anybody who actually paid attention in high school government class would know.

We had a government class in high school? Geez, I guess I should have laid off the pot back then... :shifty:

[Pro]

More feel-good responses, without any thought on the political realities.

[Produce man]

How are you going to do that with the Congress made up as it is?Well, all I can do is cast my vote. After that, it's out of my hands.

Well, I guess I could form a group and protest liberals...

Oh wait, we don't do that...:whistle:

[Pro]

Still waiting to see a proposal for dealing with this under the political realities.

I admit, I don't have a proposal. But if any of you do, let's see it.

[Produce man]

Still waiting to see a proposal for dealing with this under the political realities.

I admit, I don't have a proposal. But if any of you do, let's see it.For some reason, I don't see this nation's political/social problems being solved on Medialine...

[Pro]

For some reason, I don't see this nation's political/social problems being solved on Medialine...

But often the solutions come from the governed. In any event, before making more feelgood proclamations, try to think about the political realities.

[Shot A Load]

Political realities? How the heck are we going to get socialized medicine, cut our use of oil and all the other feel good crap that's supposed to come out of this election. I ask, since when did we deal in reality in regards to politics?

[Produce man]

Slam dunk!:worship:

[Pro]

Political realities? How the heck are we going to get socialized medicine, cut our use of oil and all the other feel good crap that's supposed to come out of this election. I ask, since when did we deal in reality in regards to politics?

There are realities in everything. You may not like them, but they do exist. You can certainly gripe about them, if it makes you feel better.

[FD2BLK]

Political realities? How the heck are we going to get socialized medicine, cut our use of oil and all the other feel good crap that's supposed to come out of this election. I ask, since when did we deal in reality in regards to politics?

Well, we're getting socialized prescription drugs for seniors thanks to the republicans. Of course no one in our government stops to think about how we're supposed to pay for all this.

[Shot A Load]

I imagine the costs between prescription drugs and socialized medicine are hugely different. I am not opposed to everybody having health care, but if we want to talk reality then some of the promises people are voting on are in reality, empty.

[Pro]

I am not opposed to everybody having health care, but if we want to talk reality then some of the promises people are voting on are in reality, empty.


That's what I was talking about. It is a valid point about political realism.

Voters don't want nuance. They want absolutes. Absolutes are easier to understand. Nuance is hard. But governing is all about nuance. Nothing is ever gained without some form of compromise. But saying that doesn't fire up the masses, though.

[News Is Broken]

Still waiting to see a proposal for dealing with this under the political realities.

I admit, I don't have a proposal. But if any of you do, let's see it.

Well, I've got one, but it involves replacing our nation's currency with this:

http://blogs.fayobserver.com/faytoz/files/2007/11/monopoly-money.jpg