AdamT
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2011
- Messages
- 17,773
- Reaction score
- 5,746
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
depends who you talk to: Robert Reich is a far left socialist hack whose main writings are based on several assumptions
1) the rich don't pay enough taxes-based on the assumption prior higher tax rates were "Just"
2) the government needs more money
3) more government is better
He attended Dartmouth College, graduating with an A.B. summa cum laude in 1968 and winning a Rhodes Scholarship to study Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Oxford University.[9] Reich subsequently earned a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.
Envious much?
Dick Celeste was a Rhodes Scholar too
it doesn't mean as much as it once did when it started eliminating the athletic requirement after Viet Nam. It basically (especially for the east coast panels) became an award for good students who are good BSers. The most qualified guy in my class for one-all american, summa cum laude, lots of volunteer work got turned down because Guido Calabresi (one of the first non-athletic Rhodes recipients) was a draft dodger who didn't like the fact that this guy was going into the Marines (it made sense, his father died early and by going into the marines as an officer he would be stationed in Va, where Va would allow him to attend the excellent U of Va law school that the Marines would pay for) where he won the Commadant's award for the finest USMCR officer candidate in country.
So Reich getting a Rhodes doesn't mean anymore to me than your master getting the Nobel Peace prize
and I still am worth many times more than Reich and again, I was an all-american-he was hardly an athlete
BTW your silly recitation of his record doesn't disprove what I said about his arguments
So you think you're better than he is because you inherited a bunch of money that you didn't earn? Interesting theory.
AFAIK athletics have always been, and still are, a consideration for the scholarship, but not a requirement.
Envious much?
Originally Posted by TurtleDude
depends who you talk to: Robert Reich is a far left socialist hack whose main writings are based on several assumptions
1) the rich don't pay enough taxes-based on the assumption prior higher tax rates were "Just"
2) the government needs more money
3) more government is better
depends who you talk to: Robert Reich is a far left socialist hack whose main writings are based on several assumptions
1) the rich don't pay enough taxes-based on the assumption prior higher tax rates were "Just"
2) the government needs more money
3) more government is better
Why are you diverting-Hes a left wing hack-that is the point I made. I don't know him personally and I admit he was an excellent student. But he's a parasite advocate and I have no use for that. His arguments are based on an assumption that much higher marginal tax rates "were feair" and thus the current tax rates on the wealthy are unfair to the people who pay even less.
I was a nominee for that scholarship. Professors Yates, Foltz and Dahl who nominated me noted that half the people who get the award will be less qualified than I am but at least another 50 who also were turned down were also more qualified than I was.
I agree with their assessments
Agree or disagree, he is anything but a hack. He's a first rate scholar.
his opinion that the current tax rates are unfair (too low for the rich) are based on his ASSUMPTION that the 90% rates of the war time era were fair. He's a hack when it comes to this just as Krugman is a hack
Robert Reich has outstanding credintials. I would accept his opinion over some uneducated political radio show hack or some Fox News Freinds any day.
his opinion that the current tax rates are unfair (too low for the rich) are based on his ASSUMPTION that the 90% rates of the war time era were fair. He's a hack when it comes to this just as Krugman is a hack
The 90% rate myth is a fallacy anyways. Dishonest hacks like AdamT like to hang it out there like the tax code during that time was even remotely the same thing. It wasn't.
Nobody paid the 90% rate. Everyone took advantage of the numerous tax loopholes that were in the tax code. That's why when Reagan lowered the Marginal Tax rates to 28%, he closed all those loopholes. Everything that comes out of AdamT's mouth and the rest of the George Orwell's Pigs that squeal all over the boards are lies. They are all Squealers, justifying any action Obama does.
claiming the rich don't pay enough taxes is a value judgment not based on academic credentials. he's a far left hack
Dimwitted conservatives always like to pound that strawman, when of course everyone understand that people pay less than the top marginal rate. People who know things also know that the effective tax rate was also much higher when the marginal rates were higher. Dimwits on the right try to argue that raising the top rate to where it was under Clinton would kill small businesses, but they are ignorant of the fact that the small business growth rate was about 150% higher under Clinton than it was under Bush.
That may be part of the argument -- just as your argument that the rich should pay the same as everyone else is a value judgement. But there are also plenty of pragmatic arguments for a more progressive tax code and not so many on the obverse side.
speaking of dimwitted arguments-pretending that the clinton tax hikes were the main or a major reason for business growth.
Nope, just pointing out that slightly higher rates ceratainly won't kill small businesses, as history has shown.
pragmatic arguments mainly for the politicians
you can buy the votes of the many by taxing a few voters a lot
Yep, that does seem to be the right wing talking point of the week. But I was referring to the fact that less proressivity contributes to income inequality and the shrinking of the middle class, and that ultimately has negative consequences for all income groups. But you know how children are; they want their ice cream NOW and they want to eat as much as they want, even if it will give them a sore tummy later on.
so if someone is retired and say they invested for years you think dividend taxation going from 15% to 40% is "slightly higher rates"?
the growth of big government is fueled by progressive taxes.
History does not support your argument. In fact, if anything, it is just the opposite.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?