[URL]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/robin-hood-reverse-history-phrase-172147545.html[/URL]
[quote]President Barack Obama has amped up the debate over wealth with a new phrase. Mitt Romney's plan to lower taxes on the wealthy, he says, amounts to "Robin Hood in reverse. It's [B]Romney-hood[/B]."
It's a clever phrase. But Obama is not the first to utter it. In fact, "Robin Hood in reverse" has a long history in American politics. It's been used and abused against Democrats and Republicans alike - as well as lobbed by the wealthy in battles over golf tournaments and yacht clubs.
It first showed up in the mainstream in 1971. George Meany, the firebrand labor leader and famed president of the AFL-CIO, was reacting to Richard Nixon's "New Economic Policy," which called for wage and price controls to tame inflation, as well as lifting some excise taxes to stimulate spending. Meany called the plan "Robin Hood in Reverse, robbing the poor to pay the rich."
(Whether the plan worked is debatable.)
The cry showed up again in 1981 - amidst another recession. This time Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called Ronald Reagan's cuts to social-welfare programs "Robin Hood in reverse."
He told the press: ''The money is going to come from those who have the least, and it's going to those who have the most."
The Reagan years, in fact, saw the phrase used repeatedly, with many on the left claiming Reagan's 1981 tax reform was reverse Robin Hood-ism.
Reverend Jesse Jackson made the phrase a key part of his run for President in 1985, saying that Reagan's economic policies were "Robin Hood in Reverse." Jackson usually added that the true measure of national character is "how we treat the least among us.''
In the early 1990s, when Democrats were raging against inequality, Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) said, "In the 1980s, we had a Robin-Hood in reverse tax policy of taking money from working families and giving it to the richest Americans."
The phrase also has also popped up among the country-club set. In 1985, a controversy over the location for the Bing Crosby Clambake, a pro-am golf tournament, caused Bing's widow to complain that, since the charity tournament had been taken over by highly-paid pros, less of the proceeds were going to charity.
"It's like Robin Hood in reverse," she told reporters.
When the St. Petersberg Yacht Club in Florida wanted to expand to include more public waterfront, residents cried "Robin Hood in reverse" in the local papers.
The phrase was even been used on Wall Street. A plan in 1987 for the Midwest Stock Exchange to move assignments to larger trading firms was called "Robin Hood in reverse" by the smaller trading firms, since it was "taking from the weak to give to the strong."
Britain, the original home of Robin Hood, has also participated. Labor party leaders attacked Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's tax plan as "Robin Hood in reverse."
Bill Clinton was accused of reverse Robin Hooding when he proposed means testing for Medicare. Democrats attacked George W. Bush's first $1.6 trillion tax cuts as "Robin Hood in Reverse." They said the same in response to the second round.
Congressman Bernie Sanders, the colorful, left-leaning independent from Vermont, has often wielded the phrase against Obama. Obama's compromises with Republicans on taxes, he has said, "are taking from the middle class and working families, and we are giving it to the wealthiest people in this country."
From the right, Grover Norquist has also accused Obama of reverse Robin Hooding. Last year, he wrote in USA Today that Obama's spending has created an overclass of highly paid federal workers while private sector workers were struggling.
"Obama is Robin Hood in reverse," he wrote.
In sum, the phrase has been used by all sides as an over-simplification of policy - a fairy-tale formulation that makes it easy even for a child to know that it's "wrong," even if the details are more complicated and fuzzy.
Now, it seems, it's Obama's turn. [/quote]
"highly paid federal workers"
Oxymoron. Of course it's Grover Norquist, so.
I like the phrase. Think it fits Romney.
"romney hood"
hahaha
This article doesn't even have any content or information. It's just "Everybody believes everybody else is misguided."
[QUOTE=Baboo00;37132314]This article doesn't even have any content or information. It's just "Everybody believes everybody else is misguided."[/QUOTE]
But that is basically going on right now. Dont you understand?
Mitt Romney's Actual Response To This Which He and His Campaign Thought Was A Good Idea:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9eV2b9_bRE[/media]
[QUOTE=Lazor;37132497]Mitt Romney's Actual Response To This Which He and His Campaign Thought Was A Good Idea:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9eV2b9_bRE[/media][/QUOTE]
In a few years presidential debates will devolve into nothing but name puns.
I don't understand how stealing less from the rich is stealing more from the poor. Taxes as a whole are theft, at least Romney is moving in the right direction by lowering someone's taxes. Obama wants both the rich and the poor to start paying more.
[editline]7th August 2012[/editline]
And on that note why does Obama acknowledge that taxing the poor is theft but thinks that taxing the rich is totally 100% ok and justified?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37132541]I don't understand how stealing less from the rich is stealing more from the poor. Taxes as a whole are theft, at least Romney is moving in the right direction by lowering someone's taxes. Obama wants both the rich and the poor to start paying more.[/QUOTE]
Romeny's tax plan isn't possible without raising taxes on the poor while lowering them for the rich
[QUOTE=Lazor;37132568]Romeny's tax plan isn't possible without raising taxes on the poor while lowering them for the rich[/QUOTE]
And why not?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37132580]And why not?[/QUOTE]
because it isn't mathematically possible otherwise
[QUOTE=Lazor;37132595]because it isn't mathematically possible otherwise[/QUOTE]
Maybe it would be if we cut defense spending (ie stop fixing things that aren't broken, M9s are fine and 1911s aren't any better or worse) stopped bailing out failing businesses, cut out the war on drugs, stopped trying to push for increased gun control, stopped running state-sponsored ads about the dangers of tobacco or alcohol or whatever, stopped trying to send aid to countries that don't utilize it properly (eg Haiti), etc.
Romney's tax plan doesn't work with what we're currently doing, but we're really in a time where we need to drastically cut on government spending.
[QUOTE=Baboo00;37132314]This article doesn't even have any content or information. It's just "Everybody believes everybody else is misguided."[/QUOTE]
That's what politics is these days. All they do is run smear campaigns and attack ads to make eachother look like shit. Here in Texas our guys running for senate would only put out attack ads so you were basically voting for the lesser of two crooked assholes.
[QUOTE=OvB;37132720]That's what politics is these days. All they do is run smear campaigns and attack ads to make eachother look like shit. Here in Texas our guys running for senate would only put out attack ads so you were basically voting for the lesser of two crooked assholes.[/QUOTE]
These days?
Presidential races from like a 150 years ago make ours look damn civil
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37132541]I don't understand how stealing less from the rich is stealing more from the poor. Taxes as a whole are theft, at least Romney is moving in the right direction by lowering someone's taxes. Obama wants both the rich and the poor to start paying more.
[editline]7th August 2012[/editline]
And on that note why does Obama acknowledge that taxing the poor is theft but thinks that taxing the rich is totally 100% ok and justified?[/QUOTE]
It's clear you don't know how money works.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37132785]It's clear you don't know how money works.[/QUOTE]
Then how does it work? Why do you think my money is not my money?
Robin Hood wasn't stealing from the rich to give to the poor. He was stealing money from the government, who was taxing their citizens to death.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37132837]Then how does it work? Why do you think my money is not my money?[/QUOTE]
social contract
[QUOTE=The Baconator;37132869]social contract[/QUOTE]
that is the most vague response to any question I've ever gotten in my life
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37132683][B][U]Maybe it would be if we cut defense spending[/U][/B] [/QUOTE]
Romney cutting the defense budget?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
it's good to know Romney's plan would be mathematically possible if it were mathematically different from what he stated his plan to be. that's a stunning revelation
[QUOTE=jordguitar;37132894]Romney cutting the defense budget?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA[/QUOTE]
The Pentagon (the group that actually matters when it comes to defense spending) has proposed a 487 billion dollar budget cut over the next decade.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-usa-defense-budget-idUSTRE80P1SP20120126[/url]
I hope Gingrich can be the fat friar.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37132837]Then how does it work? Why do you think my money is not my money?[/QUOTE]
lmao shut up
how about this, move to an abandoned island where there are no laws, no emergency services, no roads, nothing. build your own country and live tax free. until then you'll have to pay the toll for living in a first world country
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
consider it an investment for living in a country with an economy and social framework to benefit from
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37132917]The Pentagon (the group that actually matters when it comes to defense spending) has [B]proposed[/B] a 487 billion dollar budget cut over the next decade.[/QUOTE]
The republicans want to back out of it right now. Do you not understand that them cutting defense is completely against their way of things?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37132837]Then how does it work? Why do you think my money is not my money?[/QUOTE]
What you're overly concerned about is the nominal value of money, not the real value of money.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_(economics)[/url]
What this means is that you're looking at the number next to the $, not how much stuff that money can buy. Taxes are basically deflationary because can take that money out of circulation, which decreases the money supply and increases the real value of existing money.
So while you might drop from $1,000,000 of income to $500,000 (50% tax), so does everyone else making $1 million. And the middle class making $100,000 drops to say more like $70,000 (30% tax). In the hierarchy of socioeconomics the man with $500,000 is still vastly more wealthy than the man with $70,000. The "poor" aren't suddenly more wealthy than the rich.
[url]http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/07/taxes-and-the-value-of-paper-money.html[/url]
One of the key points:
"When governments spend money they must either get that money from taxes, or else borrow it, or else print it and increase the stock of money in circulation. Taxes reduce the stock of money in our pockets. For a given amount of government spending, and a given amount of government borrowing, the higher are taxes the smaller will be the amount of money printed and the slower will be the growth rate of the stock of money. And the slower the stock of money is growing over time, the higher will be the value of money today."
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
In more simple terms, if every time you were given a $10 bill you paid $3 in taxes then the $10 bill is essentially a $7 bill. Consequently, the prices for goods that would have been $10 would now become $7 because what used to be $10 is now only $7.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37132939]lmao shut up
how about this, move to an abandoned island where there are no laws, no emergency services, no roads, nothing. build your own country and live tax free. until then you'll have to pay the toll for living in a first world country[/QUOTE]
how about this, provide something meaningful to debates for once
a perfect system is impossible and we've known this since we figured out how to throw rocks. Countries like Switzerland have gotten away with obscenely low tax rates (and a higher standard of living than the United States) for years, while countries like Senegal, Taiwan, and China all have relatively poor standards of living yet have some of the highest taxes in the world
besides that, it's income tax I'm opposed to, gas taxes pay for roads, police, and fire departments; and emergency medical services could easily be delegated to the private sector
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37132983]What you're overly concerned about is the nominal value of money, not the real value of money.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_(economics)[/url]
What this means is that you're looking at the number next to the $, not how much stuff that money can buy. Taxes are basically deflationary because can take that money out of circulation, which decreases the money supply and increases the real value of existing money.
So while you might drop from $1,000,000 of income to $500,000 (50% tax), so does everyone else making $1 million. And the middle class making $100,000 drops to say more like $70,000 (30% tax). In the hierarchy of socioeconomics the man with $500,000 is still vastly more wealthy than the man with $70,000. The "poor" aren't suddenly more wealthy than the rich.
[url]http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/07/taxes-and-the-value-of-paper-money.html[/url]
One of the key points:
"When governments spend money they must either get that money from taxes, or else borrow it, or else print it and increase the stock of money in circulation. Taxes reduce the stock of money in our pockets. For a given amount of government spending, and a given amount of government borrowing, the higher are taxes the smaller will be the amount of money printed and the slower will be the growth rate of the stock of money. And the slower the stock of money is growing over time, the higher will be the value of money today."
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
In more simple terms, if every time you were given a $10 bill you paid $3 in taxes then the $10 bill is essentially a $7 bill. Consequently, the prices for goods that would have been $10 would now become $7 because what used to be $10 is now only $7.[/QUOTE]
I never said any different?
I don't mean that $10 is $10 is $10, I mean that $10 should be $10 should be $10
[quote]and emergency medical services could easily be delegated to the private sector[/quote]
They are, and it's a fucking mess.
Reverse Robin Hood.
Bizarro Robin Hood.
Hobin Rood.
Robbin' Da Hood.
I got nothing.
I can't wait for the response from Romney's campaign.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;37133234]Reverse Robin Hood.
Bizarro Robin Hood.
Hobin Rood.
Robbin' Da Hood.
I got nothing.
I can't wait for the response from Romney's campaign.[/QUOTE]
he responded already. it's the video i posted further up in this thread
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
