Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, thinks that it makes sense that voting rights in the United States should be restricted to those who own property. He believes that property owners have more of a “vested stake” in a community than do people who do not own property. That’s what he claimed on a weekly program hosted by Tea Party Nation recently.
BTW, Phillips is the individual who sent an email to members of his organization in October telling them that they should vote for the Independent candidate over Rep. Keith Ellison in the November election for 5th Congressional District in Minnesota. Phillips wrote the following about Ellison in his email: “There are a lot of liberals who need to be retired this year, but there are few I can think of more deserving than Keith Ellison. Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress.”
Meanwhile—Rushbo ranted on about poor folks recently on his radio program. In a “media tweak of the day,” Limbaugh asked listeners if they thought that people who can’t feed and clothe themselves and who receive government assistance should be allowed to vote. It was just a “think piece” Rushbo said as he asked his listeners to imagine how different the political make-up of this country would be if such people couldn’t vote.
In a Psycho Talk segment on his MSNBC program, Ed Schultz “tweaked” Limbaugh back.
Maybe Phillips and Limbaugh ought to get together to establish an organization for the purpose of taking voting rights away from certain Americans whom they deem unworthy. Why not return to the good old political days when only property-owning white men had the right to vote. Right???
Sources:
– Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
BIL, your on fire tonight with your last several postings. The failure to to get rid of the tax breaks for off-shoring jobs really frosted me but Joe Lieberman and a few Dems made it possible.
Really. Foreign governments tax breaks are the problem.
*cough*cough*cough*bullshit*cough*cough*
Anti-offshoring bill fails in US Senate
“US Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an anti-offshoring bill, which would have restricted jobs within the country and denied tax breaks to such companies that move jobs overseas.
The bill had envisaged a ban on government contractors from using US taxpayers’ money to move jobs offshore.
With the Senate voting against the bill 53-45, the Democrats failed to rescue the bill from Republican filibuster tactics. The bill needed a minimum of 60 votes to overcome the obstruction.
The Creating American Jobs and End Offshoring Act was aimed at small manufacturers and included a payroll tax exemption for companies that move jobs to US, but the bill also contained provisions to prevent businesses from deferring US taxes on the income they make from foreign subsidiaries.
‘The bill we tried to pass today (Sep 28) is based on simple common sense to keep American jobs here in America. But, Republicans continued their job-killing agenda today by protecting these tax breaks for CEOs who offshore American jobs’” Democrat Senator Harry Reid said in a statement.”
The wealthy in many cases are only taking from the society and getting government tax breaks along the way.
From foreign governments which is why
U.S. manufacturing jobs have been in steady decline since Reagan. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that manufacturing employment fell from ~17m in 1997 to ~14m in 2006. As a percentage, manufacturing jobs dropped from 16.5% in 1985 to 10.8% in 2007. The last decade has seen an unprecedented off-shoring of physical production jobs, spurred in part by lobbyist gained (read Congressional bribed) tax incentives for capital to move American manufacturing jobs overseas.
Look at NY and California for the proof in the pudding.
You want jobs here stateside make it more profitable than what the profit margin is for overseas and you’ll see it here. Thats not part of the master plan though so look for high unemployment for the next several years.
Buddha,
You took the words right out of my mouth. A lot of wealthy people produce nothing. They just work at making more money for themselves. Think of all those rich folks on Wall Street who made millions/billions for themselves while blowing a hole in the US economy. Greedy and unethical as many of them are–they looked for loopholes in regulations, designed derivatives like credit default swaps that few people understood, bet against their own investors.
And we–the less financially fortunate–had our hard-earned tax dollars used to bail them out…while they continued to give themselves huge bonuses.
raff & Blouise,
Thank you both. One lives to be of service.
Buddha,
Re post: Buddha Is Laughing
1, December 7, 2010 at 6:50 pm ——
Perfectly said … absolutely perfect … I agree with every word, every damn word!
Well said Buddha. I especially like the parasite comment. The wealthy in many cases are only taking from the society and getting government tax breaks along the way. To claim that only the land owners can vote leads to what is next? Only the land owners of X amount of acres can vote and so on down the line. The only way the common man can protect him or herself is through the power of one person one vote.
Here’s the problem with that: the rich producing anything is a myth.
Capital is not labor. Capital is simply money. Labor is actual production. Capital has shown a willingness, even a desire, to screw over and sellout labor to satisfy their own lust for profits.
U.S. manufacturing jobs have been in steady decline since Reagan. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that manufacturing employment fell from ~17m in 1997 to ~14m in 2006. As a percentage, manufacturing jobs dropped from 16.5% in 1985 to 10.8% in 2007. The last decade has seen an unprecedented off-shoring of physical production jobs, spurred in part by lobbyist gained (read Congressional bribed) tax incentives for capital to move American manufacturing jobs overseas. This has been followed by a massive outsourcing of some service sectors as well, compounding the problem. The latent production capacity we as a nation tapped to fight WWII no longer exists. It has been sacrificed to the unlimited greed of capital – people who produce nothing, yet insist on an ever bigger vig like a coked up loan shark who’s too wired to realize the marks are going to club him in the head eventually.
If you don’t make a product, you are engaged in one of two activities: providing services or arbitrage transactions. The true power of any economy is physical production capacity. We can’t expect prosperity if everyone sells insurance and trades stocks – information age or not. What capital in this country has done is systematically sellout the platform upon which our entire post-WWII economy was built and they did so out of simple personal greed. Producing nothing and abducting systemic resources to their own selfish ends, possibly to the point it kills the system.
There’s another set of creatures that behave that way in nature.
Parasites.
But the rich, as a general rule, do not produce a damn thing.
It used to be 10% of anything above $32K. If you bought a $75K car thats $4,300. Jump change especially when times were good.
Chan Gyges is correct
By the way, I think the tax was most likely a badly designed piece of legislation. It just didn’t stop the rich from producing, and it wasn’t even all that big of an impact on their spending.
I know this. And it really didn’t change what they bought. It just gave them something to think about before the purchase. How bad did they want a new product vs a used product.
Gyges:
what I said was at some point the rich wont produce anymore. You gave an example of them not buying new yachts because of the luxury tax.
Don’t you think at a certain level of taxation they will stop doing what is expensive to them and put their money in other places?
Your example is of human behavior, do you not think it works with investing as well? A business is an investment and the owner expects to make money for his time, effort and risk.
If someone is worth $4 million dollars and they make $650k per year in a business and out of that they get to keep $400k it is probably worth their time and effort to keep the business open. If they are making $150-250k per year it might not be worth their time and effort to keep the business open. They can retire, invest in tax free bonds and make that kind of money doing nothing and their principle is intact.
So back to my original premise, at some point the rich are going to stop producing.
That is as clear as I can make it. If you cant understand that go ask the owner of the company you work for (I assume you work for a company) at what level of taxation would he shut his business down and pack it in. Granted the number is not the same for all people but everyone has a set point below which they will stop working if they have other sources of income, which rich people do.
Chan,
O.k. so you’re just deflecting. Glad to know you’re honest about it.
This is what you said, “you take too much from the rich and they aren’t going to produce any more.”
I wanted two things: for you to provide an example that backs that up, and to make that joke about entering politics. I got one of the two so I’m happy.
Gyges:
I didn’t say it did, I used it as example of money flowing elsewhere when the return wasn’t acceptable. Your post underlined my premise.
At some point money flows into other things. Are we there yet, I don’t know.
But as I said above how many jobs have not been created because some person with money chose to put it into some other investment? Because it wasnt worth the risk.
Chan,
The luxury tax didn’t stop rich people from producing, it changed their consumption. It also wasn’t taking money from them, it was raising the price of the yacht they were considering buying. I think if you’ll look into it, you’ll find that they just bought a substitute good instead. .It’s certainly hinted at in this article http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/21/nyregion/new-luxury-tax-trimming-boat-sales.html “The company has broken sales records in the last three months, Mr. McMichael said, but the sales have been for used boats” and The money got spent, just not on Yachts. All of which is what you’d expect, and “”What kind of a year are we having? A very good one, one of our best seasons ever,” said Guy May, the manager. ‘More people want sailboats instead of power today, and we’ve been selling a lot of used sailboats for under $10,000.'”
By the way, I think the tax was most likely a badly designed piece of legislation. It just didn’t stop the rich from producing, and it wasn’t even all that big of an impact on their spending.
So, try again.
Gyges:
do you remember a few years ago when they had the luxury tax? It sent the yacht building business into the toilet and they had to repeal it. They weren’t necessarily not producing but at some point the return on investment isn’t enough and the risk is too high for the return. Then they shut down their companies and put their money into other things.
Remember small businesses employ a good many people. The cost that you don’t see is the number of people who don’t start businesses because the return isn’t worth their effort.
So you really cant tell me how many “rich” people haven’t even bothered to start businesses because they could make more money in the Dow, Hang Seng or Cac. How many jobs has that cost?
Edit:
“American Rich rebelling by refusing to produce?”
Chan,
A quick search of the Googles shows I’m either talking about propaganda from the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Propaganda from the Upper Archaea, or propaganda from a man whose claim to fame was being able to roll cigarettes with his lips. Personally I think the last is the most interesting of the three. He also spoke several languages, was well known for his quick wit, and appeared in the Classic movie “Freaks.”
So, since you avoided the question, should I take it that you weren’t able to find an example of the American Rich rebelling?
18 years old?
A U.S. citizen?
Not a felon?
Still breathing?
If you answer “yes” to the above questions, you are be able to vote.
The only change I’d make to that criteria is you should be required to vote, even if it’s a write in for “none of the above”.
ekeyra,
You wrote: “Ive watched people on this blog have the same conversation about who should and should not be allowed voting rights. Obviously their criteria was different then rush’s. I believe their view was if you vote republican you get your voters registration revoked? So i doubt anyone is arguing his logic of denying a certain portion of the population voting rights, merely his set of “rules”.”
Can you be more specific about this conversation that occurred at the Turley Blawg? What were the criteria of which you speak? You may believe a lot of things about other people’s views. That doesn’t make them true.
I believe all citizens should be allowed to vote in this country. What is YOUR set of rules about voting rights? Do you agree with Rush? Do you think people should be denied the right to vote because they are receiving government assistance?