1. a. Goods or property seized from a victim after a conflict, especially after a military victory. b. Incidental benefits reaped by a winner, especially political patronage enjoyed by a successful party or candidate.
2. An object of plunder; prey.
3. Refuse material removed from an excavation.
4. Archaic The act of plundering; spoliation.
SPOILSSomething about the weekend seems to bring out the socialist in the New York Times. Last Saturday and Sunday I described how the Times and its Beantown-subsidiary Boston Globe published an op-ed and editorial exemplifying classic liberal-think.
The Gray Lady is back at it again today with its editorial, "The Employment Tea Leaves." In perhaps the most revealing essay of all, the Times makes clear its view that the fruits of Americans' labor, risk and ingenuity are mere "spoils" to be distributed at the whim of politicians.
Writes the Times:
The Republicans will almost certainly renew their calls for tax cuts on investments and multimillion-dollar estates, arguing that such cuts would pump up the economy. But lower taxes for the rich would not benefit the middle class and would only worsen the budget deficit. Republicans may also continue to champion financial deregulation as a way to juice the economy. But that led to the housing bubble — and the current mortgage mess.Democrats, or some Republicans with a change of heart, must articulate — and Americans must demand — a program for ensuring that the middle class gets a bigger share of the economy’s spoils than it has received during the Bush era, when gains have largely been funneled to the richest Americans.
There it is in black and white. American's don't earn their wealth; they have no intrinsic right to it. Wealth is merely a pie, spoils to be distributed as by Roman legionnaires after their latest triumph [photo from HBO's late, lamented "Rome"]. How to do so? In the next paragraph the Times predictably prescribes "more progressive income taxes, better public education and more help for workers whose jobs are displaced by globalization." Translation: take from the rich, pump more money to the teachers unions, and open the cash spigots for new or expanded welfare programs.
This is how liberals think.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
But lower taxes for the
September 8, 2007 - 08:46 ET by motherbeltBut lower taxes for the rich would not benefit the middle class and would only worsen the budget deficit
There you have it in a nutshell...the NYT thinks that lower taxes means less money coming in; that taxation doesn't change behavior. They think if you want more money in the treasury, you raise taxes. It doesn't matter how many times they are proven wrong, that's their story and they're sticking to it.
Americans must demand — a program for ensuring that the middle class gets a bigger share of the economy’s spoils than it has received during the Bush era, when gains have largely been funneled to the richest Americans.
A program ???? What kind of program would that be? How does an economy "funnel" profits to the "richest Americans"? Does the market take its profits and hand them over to the "richest Americans" Exactly how does that work? How do those "richest Americans" manage to get the most gains from the market?
Yeah, who gives a hoot who puts the most effort in, takes the most risks, and builds the best business....everyone should have an equal share in the "spoils."
Right, NYT. The government should "manage" the economy, so that everyone gets an equal cut. After all, look how well the Central Planning thing worked out for the Soviet Union.
Why not
September 8, 2007 - 08:26 ET by zoro7957.........have a "volunteer tax"? Those wishing for higher taxes simply write a check to the government for any amount they choose.
There is no reason at all
September 8, 2007 - 10:44 ET by motherbeltThere is no reason at all why they can't do that now.
Bill Clinton once famously said that President Bush gave him a tax cut that he "didn't need." That was NOT followed by an offer to refuse it and pay his tax at his former, higher rate.
Zoro, a graduated,
September 8, 2007 - 16:46 ET by MikeBZoro, a graduated, confiscatory tax is one of the demands in the Communist Manifesto that the Democratics are enamored with. If they don't want a flat tax, where everyone pays the same rate, then how about a two-tiered tax system? On form 1040 there could be a line: do you consider yourself a ___ liberal or a ___conservative. If you checked "liberal" multiply your gross income by 90% and enter on line (some number). If you checked "conservative" multiply your gross income by 10% and enter on line (same number). This is your tax.
This way, the liberals who want the government to provide everything for everybody can be the ones who pay for it, while those of us who don't think the government should be in the charity business won't have to pay for it.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
And they need to see a
September 8, 2007 - 08:35 ET by HypocriteHaterAnd they need to see a reversal in the country’s ever-deepening inequality...
If that isn't a call for Socialism, I don't know what is.
The NYTs premises are false and have been proven false
September 8, 2007 - 08:58 ET by c5thenThey keep repeating that lower taxes don't benefit the middle class (whatever that is because it's defined differently by liberals for different purposes) and reduce the government's revenue. Both assertions have been proven false these recent years, in the mid '90s as well as in the '80s with the Reagan tax cuts.
In those instances , where taxes were significantly reduced accross the board, the middle class (see above) profited, and the government's revenue actually increased. Oh, and the economy in general increased. The mortgage "mess" that is mentioned is 1% of the mortgage industry and was created by the financial deregulation in the late 90s. It was bound to happen as part of the free market shakeout, similar to the brokerage firms and large banks merging or buying each other.
This is yet more proof that the NYT is just publishing left-wing ideology and not engaging in any journalism at all. It doesn't take any time at all to put these assertions to the test and look at the historical evidence to discredit them.
Why doesn't the NYT put it's editorial positions into practice? Since the NYT is much bigger and a much "richer" newspaper than the NY post, why not share some of it's "spoils" with the smaller paper as an effort to more fairly distribute the newspaper wealth in NYC?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
Since the NYT is much
September 8, 2007 - 09:12 ET by motherbeltSince the NYT is much bigger and a much "richer" newspaper than the NY
post, why not share some of it's "spoils" with the smaller paper as an
effort to more fairly distribute the newspaper wealth in NYC? -c5then
Well, you know, c5, they only mean other evil corporations' money. That's the thing about liberals...they talk a good game....see my comment above about Bill Clinton and his unneeded tax cut.
As for their "higher taxes= more tax revenue" theory...facts don't matter; results don't matter; they just can't admit that for them, the answer to how much tax "the rich" should pay is always "More." And that comes, not from sound economics, but from envy.
Liberal/Socialists have to
September 8, 2007 - 09:22 ET by HypocriteHaterLiberal/Socialists have to throw the class envy molotov cocktail every so often to remind the unwashed masses who to vote for (dems of course).
Who are the dividers?
September 8, 2007 - 09:01 ET by bulbasaurSo let's ask the question, is America divided because of President Bush? Is it really?
Or is the left being disingenuous (shock!), and actually revelling in pernicious class division they themselves have brought about?
Libs don't like private property, and they fully intend to take it away from you. When you resist on principled grounds, they say you're the divider. Isn't that sickening?
good for the goose
September 8, 2007 - 09:49 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSo will the NYT help by distributing the 'spoils' it receives from it's advertisers and sales of it's paper to the masses?
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
New York Times write me a big check
September 8, 2007 - 11:44 ET by Lame CherryDear New York Times,
Since you are dishing out cash from your filthy rich owners, I have not received my check yet. Please make it out to 6 figures beginning with a high number as being from fly over country I have lots of low class things to spend it on like food, bills and guns........compared to your wine, caviar and donating to Hillary Hamrod Clinton.
Thank you for giving me this money.
LC
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Wahlah!
September 8, 2007 - 11:54 ET by acumenHere's a novel idea for the lib writers at the NY Times; How about stop worrying about who's putting in and start focusing on who's taking out?
A good starting point would be "demanding" that politicians on both sides of the aisle quit spending so much on pork (read - getting re-elected).
I have worked hard,
September 9, 2007 - 12:24 ET by ConservativeRexI have worked hard, invested, sacrificed and saved for the last 30+ years so apparently, I am a beneficiary of life's lottery. (some Lib a few years back) Gebhardt I think, another in a long line of Dem idiots.
But I keep at it, 12M illegals are depending on me going to work everyday. And anyone else on the dole. I know they appreciate it when I work graveyards on Christmas, birthdays, anniverseries, etc etc. Every so often I get a thank you note. So hell yeah, a 23% flat tax rate sounds good to me, let's get after it. Let's also stop giving these rascals an unlimited checkbook of cash they spend like drunken democrats.
I am starting to get tired..then what'll they do?
If all the wealth and
September 8, 2007 - 16:37 ET by MikeBIf all the wealth and assets in this country were gathered up and redistributed equally, I think that within three years, for the most part, the people who are now rich would be rich again, and the people who are now poor would once again be poor. There would be exceptions in both classifications. Most (not all) people are in the economic condition they're in because they either have discipline (the rich) or because they don't have discipline (the poor).
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Sensible ; )
September 8, 2007 - 17:14 ET by VT Con ManMakes perfect sense if you are a commie lib America Hater
Zero sum fallacy
September 8, 2007 - 18:07 ET by Parker1227How many times have we all tried to explain this to well intended (Robin Hood) liberals?
National wealth is not a set amount of money (like a chest of gold coins) dropped down from heaven every year to be divided fairly amongst us - like on some socialist version of Survivor Island.
Total national wealth varies hugely depending on the incentives given to individual people to work hard, solve problems, and create smarter, cheaper, more enriching and efficient ways to live.
Government wealth distribution committees can't do any of this. What they can do is squelch wealth producing behavior by punishing those who work hardest with higher taxes, and by rewarding those who work least with an ever more comfortable nanny-state support system.
There has not been one
September 8, 2007 - 19:41 ET by Conservative_in_mass.There has not been one successful economic example of "wealth redistribution"based economy. None. Nada. Those that are left, i.e. Cuba and Venezuela, suffer from economic stagnation and widespread poverty, high unemployment, low productivity etc etc.
Still the commies in the MSM push their Marxist agenda as if it will "cure" this nations' "economic" woes. Are they really that stupi...
I'll stop now.
"Good News is not News" MSM mantra.
I would have no problem
September 8, 2007 - 22:59 ET by mostlymoderateI would have no problem raising taxes if the money was spent wisely on military, roads, research, investments etc. However, the money would NOT be used wisely and instead would be wasted on undeserving degenerate welfare recipients, crackwhore food-stamp recipients, illegal alien medical treatments, overpaid Federal workers, etc. Just THINK about the amount of money this country wastes. Raising taxes is NOT the solution; decreasing expenditures is the solution.
DEMOCRATIC PLAN = let more aliens sneak into the U.S. and make the citizen taxpayers flip the bill!!!
Wealth is not "distributed."
September 9, 2007 - 00:25 ET by Dave RIt is earned.
Besides, if you took every dollar that exists in this country right now and gave every one an equal amount of money, how long would it be before the bulk of the money was right back in the same hands?
I'm guessing three years, tops.
The reason the rich are getting richer is because they keep doing the same things that got them rich in the first place. Ditto for the "poor."
Those of us who wish to work to support our families had better hope it stays that way.
Has anyone here at NB ever obtained a job from a poor person?
"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts
Edited out.. because I
September 9, 2007 - 01:15 ET by mandrakeEdited out.. because I just realized you folks have my IP address :(
LOL-Careful, mandrake, we just might send Gary Coleman after ya.
September 9, 2007 - 01:35 ET by Dave R"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts