Ben Stein Stuns FOX News Sunday Commentators!

Published on February 18, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics

Today Ben Stein, a regular on Fox news, was being interviewed. He was discussing the need to begin saving early for retirement. The discussion then turned to taxes when one of the Fox Commentators’ asked Stein if it was true that about 75% of Income taxes are paid by the top 20% of the taxpayers. Mr. Stein responded that was correct. He then said that is because most of the wealth is held by the top 10% in this country. He went onto say that 90% of the securities are owned by 10% of the American population and that the top 1% owns over 50% of all securities. He then said that it is only fair that those with most of the money pay most of the taxes. He also commented that they are the only group that can afford to pay the higher taxes, without suffering adverse economic consequences, to pay for the needed services provided by the government.

After Mr. Stein’s comments there was a moment of what is called “Dead Air” and the Fox commentators then switched to a completely different topic. The truth does bite the conservatives. I know there are those that deny there is a significant disparity between the haves and the others in America. However, when 90 % of the wealth is held by 10% of the people and the remaining 10% is owned by the other 90% to deny that a great disparity exists is to deny reality!

Comments (Page 8)

106

COL Gene

on Mar 01, 2007

Paladin77

You are again WROING. What I posted is directly from the Treasury Dept Web site. That web site shows that on Sept 30, 1999 the national debt was $5.66 Billion. On Sept 30, 2000 the National Debt was $5.67 Billion. The Budget was balanced. Drmiler would not understand the truth if was 3 feet in front of his face. Go to http://www.treasurydiredt.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np and you can obtain the exact balance of the National debt between any two dates you enter into the Treasury dept Web Site. The facts are clear. The Budget was balanced when Bush took over and he turned it into a disaster. He has added more then $3 Trillion in debt over the past 6 years. By the time he retires he will have added $4 Trillion to the debt. That is on top of the $3 Trillion Reagan added.

In addition, Bush is lying about the debt going down and the amount of the debt. It went from $554Billion to $574 billion from the end of 2005 and 2006. He told us the national debt was $248 Billion in FY 2006. The treasury shown the debt went up $574 Billion in FY 2006.

107

Paladin77

on Mar 01, 2007

You are again WROING. What I posted is directly from the Treasury Dept Web site. That web site shows that on Sept 30, 1999 the national debt was $5.66 Billion.

Sir the last time I went to that site I noticed that it was the projection of revenue not the hard figures that come in months later. So on paper it was balanced for a month or two but when the hard figures came in you will see the disparity. I could have read the lines incorrectly but having been to the site before I doubt it. Maybe you did not know that you were looking at projections and not the actual figures. If that is the case then I am sorry for the mean things I thought about you.

108

Frogboy

on Mar 02, 2007

The debt is getting bigger and bigger.

That's pretty obvious.

And there are two obvious ways to get rid of that debt:

Raise taxes or decrease spending.

Gene wants to raise taxes. I want to decrease spending.

But the policitians don't want to do either so we have a debt. And the typical person doesn't really care.

109

COL Gene

on Mar 02, 2007

paladin77

The ONLY projection is the 5 months of 2007 FY. ALL other data from the Treasury is ACTUAL not PROJECTED data.

Now please explain how Bush is telling us the annual deficit in 2006 was $ 248 Billion when the Treasury said it was $574 Billion?

110

COL Gene

on Mar 02, 2007

Frogboy

I want to cut PORK but that alone will not balance the budget.

The average person will care when the obligation of paying that $500 Billion dollars EVERY Year in interest takes the money needed to help pay their Social Security and Medicare. That is what is going to happen. Just like the ever increasing balance on a Credit Card, there will come a point when the country will be UNABLE to meet its obligations and then we will be faced with MAJOR tax increases.

Look at my Blog from October 2004:

Is Bush trying to "Starve the Beast"
If so, it may backfire!

By COL Gene
Posted Saturday, October 02, 2004 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics
"Starving the Beast" is a theory that says, the conservatives are creating a financial crisis by drastic cuts in taxes with sizeable increases in spending. Professor Paul Krugman of Princeton is one who talks about this idea. This theory says, the purpose of creating this fiscal crisis is to attack Social Security and Medicare which many conservatives hate. It is doubtful President Bush is the author of this idea but may be the means for conservatives to make it happen.

Whether the fiscal crisis we are creating is due to "Starving the Beast" or some other reason like GREED, it will be of little consequence. The harm it will cause will be the same!

I believe the reaction to our impending fiscal crisis will not be to make significant cuts or eliminate either Social Security or Medicare. These two social programs are by far the most popular programs ever created by Congress. In addition, only the wealthy could live out their retirement years without these programs paying the expected benefits. Any real change to either program would have to be very far out so as to not impact the current voting population.

If the conservatives, as a reaction to a future fiscal crisis, were to attempt to are actually cut or eliminate either of these programs, they will be swept from power. Then the moderate and liberal majority will impose their solution to the crisis and keep Social Security and Medicare in place. Some possible solutions they may employ come to mind:

End the cap on Social Security Wages ($87,700 this year) and tax all earned income the same as Medicare. This would only impact the wealthiest 10 % of Americans.

Include all earned, tax exempt, dividend and capital gain income to the tax base for Medicare. This would only impact the wealthy.

Increase the tax rates for the top two income brackets and use the added revenue to solve the fiscal crisis.

These are but a few ways to solve the problem and make sure the wealthy pay the bill.

I guess it would be good for the conservatives, regardless of the motivation for the current fiscal and tax policies to remember this saying: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR!

111

Frogboy

on Mar 03, 2007

I want to cut PORK but that alone will not balance the budget.

The average person will care when the obligation of paying that $500 Billion dollars EVERY Year in interest takes the money needed to help pay their Social Security and Medicare. That is what is going to happen. Just like the ever increasing balance on a Credit Card, there will come a point when the country will be UNABLE to meet its obligations and then we will be faced with MAJOR tax increases.

I agree. Cutting pork won't balance the budget. You have to cut the welfare programs -- Medicaid and Medicare in particular would do it.

And you are also correct that there is a certain point where one has so much debt that they can no longer function. But we are no where near that point and frankly, conservatives could care less if the federal governent went bankrupt. Other than the military and funding the judiciary, most of the rest of the federal government is a waste.

So while I don't like deficits and debt, the dire consequences of unlimited deficit spending is not something that worries me at all.

I don't care of social security gets paid. I don't care if medicare gets paid. And I definitely don't care if medicaid gets paid out. If those programs were gone, people would have to look out for their own families (oh horrors) like they did for thousands of years before 1932.

112

COL Gene

on Mar 03, 2007

Frogboy

"You have to cut the welfare programs -- Medicaid and Medicare in particular would do it." That is what the majority will NOT allow. All but the VERY wealthy need Medicare. The same is true for Social Security. You have proven my point-- To solve our fiscal problems, we will need MORE revenue because what would have to be cut to do the job with JUST budget cuts will not Fly. Some conservatives and the wealthy may agree but I doubt you could get 10% to agree on cutting Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security.

"And you are also correct that there is a certain point where one has so much debt that they can no longer function. But we are no where near that point " With the Interest on the debt going from $90 Billion to $500 billion we are at that point. We will need those hundreds of Billions for Medicare and Social Security!

There is no practical way the low and most of the middle income Americans could replace Medicare or Medicaid. The cost of the insurance could not be afforded given their income. As for Social Security, you would have to begin with workers in their early 30"s to replace Social Security. The other workers are too old to replace that income and we still have the problem of the Boomers and most likely most of the X and Y generations. The bottom line is the VAST MAJORITY of voters WILL NOT stand for cutting these programs. Thus they MUST be funded with tax increases.

113

Island Dog

on Mar 03, 2007

The bottom line is the VAST MAJORITY of voters WILL NOT stand for cutting these programs. Thus they MUST be funded with tax increases.

If the "vast majority" don't want these programs cut, then the "vast majority" should have their taxes increased, not just successful Americans like you advocate. You are just looking for ways to fund useless entitlements.

114

COL Gene

on Mar 03, 2007

IslandDog

We have covered that. The issue is the ability to pay and the adverse impact of increasing taxes on middle income workers. It is far better to get the added revenue from the SURPLUS of the wealthy then the Nuts and Bolts of the working American!

Let's put it to a vote-- See if the VAST MAJORITY wants to increase all tax rates or just the tax rates from those that can afford to pay a little more!

115

Island Dog

on Mar 03, 2007

We covered it and you were shown to be wrong. All you do is twist everything to somehow justify taxing successful Americans.

Let's put it to a vote-- See if the VAST MAJORITY wants to increase all tax rates or just the tax rates from those that can afford to pay a little more!

Americans had that chance with John Kerry, and they didn't go for it. You are a class ware advocate, plain and simple. You don't care that raising taxes will affect other Americans, you just need to find a way to fund more entitlements. People don't want a welfare state like you propose col, understand that.

116

MythicalMino

on Mar 03, 2007

why does the majority only matter when the democrats are in power?

117

Frogboy

on Mar 04, 2007

There is no practical way the low and most of the middle income Americans could replace Medicare or Medicaid. The cost of the insurance could not be afforded given their income. As for Social Security, you would have to begin with workers in their early 30"s to replace Social Security. The other workers are too old to replace that income and we still have the problem of the Boomers and most likely most of the X and Y generations. The bottom line is the VAST MAJORITY of voters WILL NOT stand for cutting these programs. Thus they MUST be funded with tax increases.

We have already agreed that the majority will not agree to cutting those programs.

Similarly, the majority won't agree on raising taxes either so what's your point.

As for saying that the majority of middle class can't replace medicare or medicaid, you're totally wrong. Most of the middle class has insurance already. Medicare does nothing for them and they don't qualify for medicaid.

118

Frogboy

on Mar 04, 2007

We have covered that. The issue is the ability to pay and the adverse impact of increasing taxes on middle income workers. It is far better to get the added revenue from the SURPLUS of the wealthy then the Nuts and Bolts of the working American!

Let's put it to a vote-- See if the VAST MAJORITY wants to increase all tax rates or just the tax rates from those that can afford to pay a little more!

And as Bakerstreet has pointed out, people, even the middle class, could live on a lot less.

The majority certainly could "afford" higher taxes as well. To use your old argument, people had higher taxes during the 90s and they weren't starving. So why is it you just want to raise my taxes when you could afford your taxes to go up too?

119

COL Gene

on Mar 04, 2007

Frogboy

"And as Bakerstreet has pointed out, people, even the middle class, could live on a lot less."

Not nearly as easy as the wealthy.

Many in the middle class live from pay check to pay check. I want to raise the taxes on the wealthy because we need the added revenue to pay our bills and the wealthy can afford to pay more without adversely impacting consumption. It is GREED not NEED that drive the wealthy to want more. They do not need another ZERO at the end of their net worth statement. The rich will be able to pay higher taxes from their SURPLUS not from what they need to live like the middle class. Let's Put it to a vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!

120

Draginol

on Mar 05, 2007

I'm with with it being put to a vote.

Are you calling me greedy, Gene? I provide you this site free of charge. You do nothing in return for it and you would have the audacity to call me greedy?

What public works have you done? Where is the evidence of your selflessness?

I am a capitalist. I work for what I EARN and resent men with guns looting what I have earned to squander it when I can do far more good for my family and community with the money I earn than the government can.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!