Comments:  This section is for listeners. To receive a reply from Jack Clark, you should call the comment line.

BLESS YOU!


Logic is sorely lacking lately and was very glad to stumble upon you.

posted by  Anonymous  2:18 AM   [+]

 

The way to do this is to eliminate taxes for people who make less than 60,000 a year.

The other way is adversarial.

posted by  Anonymous  8:49 PM   [+]

 

Oh you guys are geniuses.

So your argument against be called a communist is that HALF the country is communist. Does that mean you admit you are a communist and are glad that half of the US is as well? Or are you a confused liberal with no real arguments except 2nd grade comebacks?

Listen to DemocratsareLost.com or Democrats are Lost: Itunes.

If you are for freedom of speech, and arent trying to supress the views of the opposing side, and are not afraid of others hearing another view, you wont delete this post. Oh well, This post wont see light of day. At least listen for yourself, Jack.

posted by  Anonymous  2:30 AM   [+]

 

So let me get this right.

Some "poll" (of course you don't cite that poll...kinda like the vague "they say" or "I've heard") says that income should be evenly distributed.

So, as is always the case for you welfare state types, why bother working hard, trying to get ahead and maybe making a better life for ourselves?

According to this logic why even work? Let the rich be your sugar daddy!

You claim that whatever you say will refute the right is "guaranteed".

Or your (or somebody elses) money back?

Oh, one more thing. Ask your hero Ted Kennedy why he and his family hide their wealth in off-shore (and untaxed) trusts. (from the book 'Do as I Say, Not as I Do' by Peter Schweizer, published by Doubleday)

You libs...you crack me up.

posted by  Anonymous  9:39 AM   [+]

 

SO YOU STEAL MONEY FROM THOSE WHO LEGITIMATLY EARN IT.
GIVE IT TO THOSE WHO ARE TO LAZY TO WORK OR CHOSE TO IGNORE THEIR EDUCATION.
THIS THOUGHT PROCESS DEFIES LOGIC.
ALL YOU ARE CREATING IS GOVERMENT DEPENDENCY AND SUBJUGATING THE POOR AND UNEDUCATED TO A LIFE MEANINGLESSNESS.
IF YOU DONT PAY TAXES , THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE.

posted by  Anonymous  11:56 AM   [+]

 

You quoted that 66% of Americans think wealth should be more evenly distributed. This is an obvious result of the fact that about 66% of Americans earn below average incomes. Asking these people if wealth should be more spread out is equivalent to asking them if they would like more money.

Everybody resents people who are more successful than them. It is no surprise that the bottom majority of income earners feel wealthier people should be punished with taxes. If one compares Americans to the world income distribution however, this whole country looks like rich snobs. And while 35% of rich Americans' income pays for the federal government, only a fraction of a percent of American wealth is spent on foreign aid. These lowest-earning 200 million Americans are basically saying they'd prefer their wealth better distributed with those richer than them, but not with those poorer than them (ask any of them how they feel about immigrants in their job market, or outsourcing). Big surprise.

The relevant numbers in this case are the actual tax data, not just people's opinions of the situation. You mention that the wealthiest 10% of Americans earn 70% of the nation's income. This should be obvious, since if they weren't making more money than the rest of of us then they wouldn't be the top 10%. It should also be noted that they pay 70% of the tax burden. The top 0.1% pay hundreds of times their share of federal taxes, while the the bottom 50% collectively pays only 3% of federal taxes. If America's richest 4%, a population approximately equal to that of Ohio, decided to pick up and take their business elsewhere, the United States would lose over half of its tax income. I suggest we thank our wealthy taxpayers for their contributions instead of resenting them and calling them selfish for not paying more.

Prosperity is created by generating new wealth, not redistributing existing wealth. Whenever you steal from the rich and give to the poor, the rich become less motivated to work because they don't get to keep as much of their earnings, and the poor become less motivated to work because they don't need to work as much to get by. This is why "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has failed repeatedly in history.

posted by  Anonymous  11:29 PM   [+]

 

The following are two posts submitted on 850-KOA Radio/forum in Denver CO. The First Post is from the thread author which referrences your article 92, the second is the response posted by me:


huskerco
Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14

Mike Rosen - Living Wage
At the beginning of the 11:00 hour on Wednesday, March 5, 2007, Mike criticized the idea of a Living Wage. He said that the Market determines the wages of workers. Contrary to the Selfish View of Life, a Living Wage is a moral requirement of a Just Society.

In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said that workers deserve a Living Wage. Theodore Roosevelt called for a Living Wage. Franklin Roosevelt called for a Living Wage. The Catholic Church supports a Living Wage.

Why is Mike afraid to debate the issue of a Living Wage with an expert from the Left? He likes to bash Liberal ideas, but won't confront their advocates.

If you want to know more about the Living Wage, you can listen to Jack Clark at the therationalradical.com episode 92.

#2
Today, 08:13 AM
CCC
Member Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 44

same old thing...
Jack Clark, in his "blast the right exclusive analysis" takes licence to launch into a flawed conspiritorial depiction of the American free-enterprise system. There are really very few concepts in the lefts wealth-distribution schemes...and I thank-you huskerco for giving me an up-to-date source so that I could check it for any 'new' ideas.

Sorry...I didn't find any.

So even though Mr.Clark derides the "right-wing" for even calling those with his ideas 'socialist' or 'communist'...that is what they are, because that is what their 'ideas' are.

People that espouse socialist and communist philosiphies as the right way to 'run' the United States are, I'm sorry to say; Socialists and/or Communists.

Two little secrets belie the workability of these 'tax-the-rich', 'wealth-distribution' or even 'fair' ideas that are encompassed in the 'living-wage' concept:

1) Human nature. No one will work as hard for others or 'society' as they will for themselves or their family.

2) There is no assumtion of 'zero-sum-game' in an operating economy. In game theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other. Socialists think there is one big 'finite' pie and one who has more must displace the portion of one who has less...making this an 'unfair' situation. But that is not true:

When I was a kid I mowed the lawn of an old lady down the street for five dollars. By doing that job I created five dollars worth of value, for which she gladly paid five bucks.

The whole world is full of people delivering goods and services to others and in every act they are creating value.

Yes, Mr. Clark cited the likes of Adam Smith, Pope John Paul II, F.D.R.

But other, less misguided leaders like Stalin, Mao, and Castro used the socialist model for a more sinister purpose: To control a population.

Who could argue with socialism's overlying precept of 'fairness'...and who would?

huscerco, I remember numerous times through the years hearing Mike Rosen debating these points with guests and callers including "experts from the left". He never seemed "afraid" and many times they hung-up on him.

I can imagine that Mike would welcome a debate with Jack Clark. I can also imagine that Jack Clark would not want to interrupt his own spoonfeeding of populist-progressive-socialist-talking-point-pablum to 'inquiring liberals' only to be exposed by Mike Rosen.

So screw him!
__________________
Redneck


Please join the Coalition for a Conservative Majority:
http://www.ccmajority.com/

posted by  Anonymous  11:18 AM   [+]

  Post a Comment