Ben Stein Stuns FOX News Sunday Commentators!

So what's your point? It's the conservatives of this country who have been saying all along that the wealthy are the ones paying most of the taxes while the liberals keep screaming that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. Sounds to me like Stein simply agreed with what the conservatives have been saying all along.

MasonM

No he is agreeing with the position that the wealthy should pay higher taxes because the have MOST of the money and can afford to pay them without suffering from paying the taxes. All the conservatives want us to believe is they are OVER taxed and NEED a tax CUT. That is NOT what Mr. Stein comments say!

Do you have a link to the actual transcript of this discussion? As you have a well established habit of misquoting and misrepresenting what people have said, I frankly can't accept your word for it or much of anything else based upon your track record.

even if he DID say it....so what? It is his opinion...just like it is your opinion (Gene) that we become a socialist/communist country. Just like it is your opinion that the money I make, does not belong to me, but rather, belongs to "you"....

An opinion is just that: an opinion. I happen to believe that the money someone makes, should be theirs, and not yours, or mine, or the governments. Using our own Brad as an example, the government didn't earn his money, just like you didn't earn his money....

an opinion is an opinion...and I happen to believe his opinion (if indeed that is what he said) is wrong...just like everything you happen to type here I think is wrong....but again, that is my opinion.

MasonM

It was on Fox News Sunday today. I do not know if they post a link to their show. However this is what Ben Stein said and it was clear that the Fox Commentators did not know what to respond!

Mythical Mino

The data as to who holds the wealth in this country is not Opinion. I have scene data that confirms what Mr. Stein said today.

I will second it, what is your point? You just seem to look for anyone saying "tax the rich" to somehow validate your socialist points. The whole tax situation has been argued with you over and over, and you will not accept anything less than extreme taxation of anyone who has a moderate wealth. Your socialist agenda is obvious, and it's not going anywhere. You want to tax someones income over 50%, that is just ridiculous, and I think a lot of it comes from your jealously of successful Americans.

Frankly, knowing your past record of misrepresentation, I doubt that it happened exactly as you say. But, even if it did, so what? How is the opinion of some guy named Ben Stein any more valid than anyone else's?

You're obviously just hunting for anyone or anything that agrees with your socialist viewpoint no matter how dumb it is or how badly such a thing would damage the economic base of this country.

IslandDog

Until we have balanced the budget and paid down the debt, the tax rates are TOO low given the level of spending. Please do not show your ignorance by telling me we can both balance the budget and pay down the debt with just spending cuts. THAT IS NOT TRUE.

Again the statistics are NOT opinion but fact. To have only 10% if the securities owner by 90% of the people is not a healthy situation. That is far to skewed to have such a small segment of the population possessing most of the wealth.

And when you redistribute that wealth, you end up with bread lines. Like it or not, the 90% simply refuse to do what the 10% does. They'd rather pull a paycheck and not have the risk and headache of providing jobs and managing a business.

"Healthy" in this case is really about "fair". To Col Gene it is fair to give people what they haven't earned. It's fair to take profits away from people who have earned them. It's a sad, late-18th century point of view that has been found wanting time and again.

If you want to see the result of people like Col Gene making policy, look at France.

Gene....I was not disputing any "statistics" that say who holds what wealth....

What I am saying is that the opinion that they should be taxed, taxed, and taxed again, while those who refuse to even look for a job gets the hand-outs is simply that....your (socialistic) opinion.

Why should (say) Brad Wardell's taxes go to my sister-in-law's boyfriend who just simply REFUSES to even pretend to look for a job? But, according to you, that is ok...and that is how it should be...because ppl like Brad Wardell makes "too much" money.

Bakerdtreet


"And when you redistribute that wealth, you end up with bread lines”

That is pure BS. We had higher tax rates in the 1990's and the wealthy never did so well. Where were the bread lines then? That is the Battle Cry of those that have most of the wealth so that can have even more wealth. It is far more important to balance the budget and pay down the debt then to have the top 10% become more wealthy!!!!!!!!!

You always tell half the story, Gene. You fail to point out that the huge burst in the economy was due to the Internet boom, and you also fail to point out that once they started leeching from those profits it went into decline.

You like to pretend that Bush taking office, before any of his policies were enacted, somehow caused the economy to tank. In reality, it just took that long to see your failed socialist policies to start doing serious damage. The fact is the economy was on a slide before Bush did anything.

ok...lets tax....starting with you


edit: and just when exactly were you a Republican?

Bakerstreet

If your contention were correct that higher taxes on the wealthy were so terrible, NOTHING would have produced a decade of prosperity in the1990’s. That prosperity was the result of far more then just the Internet Boom. I did not say that the Bush policies caused the economy to tank. I said the Bush policies have caused an excessive increase in the debt and the interest we all must pay with our tax dollars on that added debt. The contention that if we returned to the tax rates on the wealthy that existed in the 1990's would result in an economic problem is just not supported by the experience of the 1990's. Demand is driven by the spending of the 90% and the spending of the 10% WOULD NOT CHANGE IF THEIR TAX RATES RETURNED TO THE PRE BUSH TAX CUTS. WHAT IT WOULD MEAN IS THAT WE WOULD SAVE 70% OF THE LOST TAX REVENUE FROM THE BUSH TAX CUTS TO HELP BALANCE THE BUDGET. We will need to reduce the deficit to deal with Social Security and Medicare as the Baby Boomers retire!

You do realize that putting stupid comments in all caps doesn't make them any less stupid don't you? You have no grasp of economics at all.

There are no adverse economic consequences for the rich to pay more taxes than the poor. There is income disparity between the rich and the poor of the USA. That's why they are rich or poor... without the rich, there would be no poor.

What's the problem with this disparity, though? Is it a problem that the rich get to eat delicacies that most of the poor think are disgusting anyway? Is it a problem that the rich can afford nice cars while the middle can still drive and the poor can take the subway? Everyone's still eating, getting where they need to go, and able to fall in love, get married, have kids, etc. So who cares if someone has more money? Why should the government take my rich boss's money and give it to me to feed my family, when he is already paying me a fair salary? That's where the argument really breaks down. You go from this phantom rich that isn't really pinpointed to the guy who is paying your salary already. If I want more money from him, I need to talk to him, not get the government to hand it to me.

Ah, but you see he doesn't actually work. His job isn't threatened in any way as he lives on tax dollars. Is it any surprise that he wants to see taxes increased? We do need to cut government spending so maybe we should start by eliminating government pensions and cutting off all payments. That would save a fortune.

only for the ranks of Col from the army....keep the pensions for everyone else...in fact, my time in the army, I never met a Col I cared for....Generals were all good to the soldiers, captains were too....but Cols, full bird or not....they never impressed me or any of the soldiers I knew while I served...

---MasonM

Does anyone, really, grasp it? I wonder sometimes.

jythier

It is the disparity between the haves and all others that is a problem. To have 10% own 90 % and the remaining 90% split the other 10% is the issue. With that sort of distribution, it is clear that we solve the budget deficit by taxing the 10% more and leave the taxes of the 90 % the same.

MythicalMino

Well you do not impress me!!!!!!!!

I love those that want to solve a 600 Billion per year budget deficit (Not counting the surplus from Social security) with spending cuts at a time when we need to increase the size of the military, hire 10,000 border agents, increase the intelligence agencies and Homeland Security. Yes there is 30 Billion in Pork but that is a drop in the bucket compared with the size of the deficit and the need to REPAY the $9 Trillion dollars in debt Reagan and Bush 43 have piled up.

wait a minute....how did Reagan get involved in this? I thought you have been spouting that Bush did this all by himself, and that Clinton took care of everything after Reagan....Col, you make no sense....

And, the funny thing about me impressing you or not....I never have tried to "impress" you....especially you being a Col in the military. Officers are a strange breed....they live off the backs of the enlisted. Especially Cols....Cols (at least any Col I ever came into contact with) reminded me of every 1Lt I ever came in contact with (except for one...he was the executive officer of my last unit I was in). They were either lording it over the lower enlisted (1st Lt over enlisted, trying to prove a point...and Cols over the all enlisted and lower rank officers) or kissing the asses of those ranked higher (1st Lt kissing the Captains' asses....or Cols kissing the asses of the General on base).

Col, a Col in the army always seemed like the "middle" rank, that was only trying to get to the next level. You are like that....but you want to tax those more successful than you to get there, instead of working for it.

A dead horse that gets beaten...is STILL dead!

MythicalMino

If you look at history you will see what Bush 43 did is a replication of what Reagan did. Cut taxes increased spending and created a budget deficit. Reagan with that supply side Voodoo economics added $3 Trillion to the national debt during his term and it took 19 years to finally balance the budget. The National debt went from $900 Billion in 1980 to $5.7 Trillion when GWB took over. Bush did the same thing-- Cut Taxes and increased spending and in one year turned a Balanced Budget into a major deficit. His fiscal policy has taken the national debt in 6 years from $5.7 Trillion to $9 Trillion and heading toward $10 Trillion by the end of his term!

About 5% of the officers reach the rank of COLONEL. I was also nominated for general but my lack of combat service in Vietnam was most likely the reason I was not given a Flag. Only about 3% of all officers are nominated for a Star. I was promoted to Colonel in 19 years had three commands and graduated from the Army war College. What have you achieved in the military?