Clark Questions Patriotism of Rich! [gotta hear this audio clip!]

Rush Limbaugh ^ | January 23, 2004 | Rush Limbaugh

[ejdrapes]

Clark Questions Patriotism of Rich!

January 23, 2004

On Friday, WGIR radio host Mike Ball asked fired General Wesley Clark - a.k.a. General Jack D. Ripper - about his plan to force people with incomes over a million dollars a year to pay for all his social programs. Ball referenced the fact that those people already pay a largely disproportionate share of the taxes in this country. (data) Again, the top 1% in this country (those making $293K+) earned 37.42% of all the income tax revenue the IRS collected in 2000 and 33.9% of it in 2001.

Clark snapped, "If you make more in this country you should pay more - and it shouldn't be just the same percentage, because when you don't make much money you have to spend the money on the necessities of life." This newest Democrat went on to define patriotism the liberal way: working more for the government, less for yourself. "But when you make a lot of money you've got the necessities covered, you're spending the money on luxuries and if you're just spending on luxuries then you can afford to pay a higher percentage for the privilege of living in this country. If you're patriotic in this country you support it..."

Now, Republicans are always said to be "questioning patriotism," although I've never seen a single case of anyone on the right doing so, but when Ball followed by asking if "someone who has a high income that doesn't agree that they should have to be obligated to pay more taxes is less patriotic," Clark said: "Exactly. I'd say they don't understand the benefit of the country they're living in." This is just unbelievable, ladies and gentlemen, just incredible. This pitch for Marx's failed economics is not play for General Ripper.

Listen to Rush...

(...roll Wes Clark questioning the patriotism of those who don't want higher taxes)

Only The Rich Pay Taxes!
(Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes)
(Excel file: IRS Income Stats)

[clee1]

This guy is toast.

[lmr]

If you tax everyone based on the fact of whether or not they are able to provide for the "basic necessitiies" then there would be no incentive to live above that. There would be no incentive to DO BETTER. That is the same economy as DEFEATIST COMMUNISM. I think most of the American Public is informed enough to see the difference and recognize this OBVIOUS class warfare game.

[freebilly]

"But when you make a lot of money you've got the necessities covered, you're spending the money on luxuries and if you're just spending on luxuries then you can afford to pay a higher percentage for the privilege of living in this country. If you're patriotic in this country you support it..."

Gee, it's now patriotic to believe in socialism. And I thought Dean was the poster child for political suicide....

[motzman]

"...you're spending the money on luxuries and if you're just spending on luxuries then you can afford to pay a higher percentage for the privilege of living in this country."

Privilege?

[litany_of_lies]

Wesley Clark reminds me of a character running for President played by Martin Sheen at least 20 years ago (tempted to say it was "The Reincarnation of Peter Proud," but could be totally wrong).

Anyway, the main character in the story had a premonition that Sheen as President would send nukes on a whim and tried to do something to prevent his election. Either this character or someone else tried to kill Sheen at a campaign appearance. Sheen grabbed a baby and used it as a human shield to protect himself. No one was hurt, but pictures taken of his actions finished his campaign.

Wesley Clark is perfectly capable of both types actions (sending nukes on a whim AND using a baby as a human shield).

[clee1]

I think most of the American Public is informed enough to see the difference and recognize...

Don't bet on it! 35% of Americans are already socialists and believe in the "classless" society anyway, and 50% are conservative but apathetic and don't bother to keep up with what the opposition is doing (the sheeple).

What remains is us 15% conservatives and/or libertarians - the informed, concerned minority.

[avenir]

That was a great scene, it was in THE DEAD ZONE. Christopher Walken could grab a person's hand and see into their minds. He grabbed Sheen's at a rally and saw what he would do as President, so he felt he had to stop him.

[APFel]

Ah, Wesley, Wesley, Wesley...

And what of the poor working class stiffs that MAKE the "luxuries"? Yachts and limosines aren't built and assembled by millionaires, you dolt.

[BookmanTheJanitor]

Few Mourn Demise of Luxury Tax
Daily Policy Digest

Tax Issues / Effects Of Tax Cuts

Monday, January 06, 2003

The last vestige of the 1990 federal luxury tax disappeared on January 1, 2003 -- as the tax on cars expired. Economists had come to appreciate just how destructive the tax was only a few years after it took effect in 1991 and politicians began to repeal sections of it as early as 1993.

Starting in 1991, Washington levied a 10 percent luxury tax on cars valued above $30,000, boats above $100,000, jewelry and furs above $10,000 and private planes above $250,000.

Yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales in the first year, while boat builders estimated layoffs at 25,000.
The tax took in $97 million less in 1991 than had been projected -- simply because people stopped buying items subjected to it.
All but the car tax was repealed in 1993 -- and in 1996, Congress voted to phase that out too.
Some tax analysts point out that soak-the-rich tax schemes can backfire and leave the federal Treasury -- as well as taxpaying workers -- worse off than they were before the meddling began.

Source: Editorial, "Good Riddance to the Luxury Tax," Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2003.

[Gracey]

bump for later reading

[Ronin]

Wow....

This is going to fly like a toolbox.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Clark promotes Communism in its purest form...and no one in the "mainstream" media even catches it.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

Dear Lord, this man is dangerous.

Even if he doesn't win the Pry-Mary, the 'Toons will still more than likely keep him around.

Scary, scary stuff...

[Glenn]

Wasn't it Mondale who offered to raise taxes and went down in a blaze of doo-doo on election day?

Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.

Fools.

[The Wizard]

I didn't think anyone this dumb actually existed

[Capitalism2003]

"From each according to his ability...to each according to his need"

ah, how nice to see the democrats keeping Karl Marx's legacy alive...Remember, the 'death tax' is one of the main pieces of the communist manifesto...as is a "progressive" income tax...increased power to the state..weakening of all religious institutions...

sound familiar?

[goldstategop]

When Congress passed the "luxury yacht" tax back in the early 90s, they meant to punish the rich for owning items of conspicuous consumption. The law of unintended consequences emerged and instead of the rich taking the hit, it was the blue collar working stiffs who built and serviced the yachts. They were all put out of work since the rich went abroad to find yachts to buy without having to pay the tax Congress held they ought to pay. So you see, "class warfare" backfired big time. If this history is any indication though, you can bet the Left has learned nothing from the fiasco.