Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Why the Economy Grows Like Crazy Amid High Taxes

By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet. Posted November 17, 2008.


The raw truth is that the economy has grown faster when taxes were higher, but how can we explain that phenomenon?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Larry Beinhart

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The real-world effects of tax policy are counterintuitive.

They run exactly opposite the conventional wisdom. They defy what the Heritage Foundation calls common sense and what the American Enterprise Institute calls logic.

Reality laughs at the Laffer curve, calls Ronald Reagan wrong and says George W. Bush is a loon.

High marginal tax rates correlate with economic growth.

Examples include World War II and the Truman-Eisenhower years, when it was around 90 percent, and the Clinton years, when it was high relative to the preceding and following administrations.

Tax rate increases are followed by real economic growth.

Examples include Hoover in 1932, Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940, Bush the Elder in 1991 and Clinton in1993.

Moderate tax cuts are followed by a flat economy.

This is a generalization from one example: Johnson in 1964.

Large tax cuts are followed by a boom, a bubble and a crash.

1929, 1987 and 2008 are examples.

These are covered in more detail in the first part of the article "Tax Cuts: The B.S. and the Facts."

Why do high taxes create a stronger economy?

I used to run a small business -- a commercial film production company.

Every time we took a dollar out as personal income, it instantly turned into 50 cents.

If we didn't really need the money, that was an incentive to keep it in the company and to find ways to spend it that took it out of the taxable profit column but increased the value of the company.

High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into long-term growth.

With high taxes, the only way to retain the bulk of the wealth created by a business is by reinvesting it in the business -- in plants, equipment, staff, research and development, new products and all the rest.

The higher taxes are (and from 1940 to 1964 the top rates were around 90 percent), the more this is true.

This creates a bias toward long-term planning.

If a business is planning for the long term, it wants a happy, stable work force. It becomes worthwhile to pay good wages and offer decent benefits.

Low taxes create an incentive for profit taking.

It is easy to confuse profitability with wealth creation.

They are not the same.

President Eisenhower built the interstate highway system. There is no doubt that this gave the country an asset of great value, one that was very productive. It created great "wealth." But, aside from the construction companies that contracted the work, it was not profitable.

Selling subprime mortgages, trading in derivatives, packaging mortgage-backed securities and "flipping" condos were all very profitable but did not create wealth.

The theory is that if the rich can keep their money, they will invest in businesses that create jobs, more businesses, more tax revenue and greater "wealth" for the nation.

That sounds like logic and common sense. But is it, in practice, what happened?

Once tax cutting began, the culture of business changed.

It was no longer enough for a business to be a reasonably good business, making steady, reliable profits.

Indeed, that became a very bad condition for a business to be in. It made it a target for takeovers by people who were willing to milk them of their profits.

Among the ways you can get more profit out of a going business are:

  • Cutting the workforce -- possibly sacrificing long-term productivity
  • Cutting salaries -- who cares if the employees are unhappy? The balance sheet improves.
  • Selling off assets -- who cares what happens in 10 years? We can take the money now.
  • Outsourcing -- which sends the "wealth" somewhere else.

A whole host of devices were developed to do all of the above: junk bonds, leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers, greenmail and the like.

Lots of money could be made that way -- for a small number of individuals. But it doesn't produce "wealth."

An environment in which profit-taking is cheap creates the conditions for a bubble.

Once you've taken your profit, and you have the cash in hand, you look for a place where you can get profits quickly, then again and again. Instead of examining how sound a company is, how well it's run, its debt load and its long-term prospects, other things become important -- such as the speed at which you can profit and the ease of entry.

Instead of investing in business -- which is difficult, slow and complicated -- investors go into markets.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: taxes, economic growth, conventional wisdom

Larry Beinhart is the author of Wag the Dog, The Librarian, and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin. His latest book is Salvation Boulevard. Responses can be sent to beinhart@earthlink.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Another Excellent Article By Beinhart ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 17, 2008 12:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then there is the myth of creative destruction. What we have seen is the destruction of the wealth of the country , the middle class and the poor to line the pockets of the already stinking rich.

We need evolution of the economy, not the false promise that miracles rise from the ashes of creative destruction. Indeed horse buggy makers are gone now, but they didn't go out of business overnight, they produced buggies for years after cars were invented. Many went on to build the chassis for GM and Chrysler.

Creative destruction is another ruse to enable the pillage of the equity of hard work by labor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Share!!
Posted by: cokids on Nov 17, 2008 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, share the link to this explanation with your friends who would disagree! We need a dialoge on these topics! How will we ever get them with the right reading rightwing sites and the left reading these sites! Do YOU read/listen to info from the right? DO!! Then respond with your comments. I bet they have comments sections too!

Without this dialoge we are DEAD!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Flawed
Posted by: gellero1 on Nov 17, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The premise of this piece is so flawed I'm not sure it's worthy of a response.

Someone else will have to educate the author about the 90% marginal tax rate which was never paid by anyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Flawed Posted by: zepher
» Cop-out Posted by: fork
» RE: Flawed Posted by: abbadon2007
» 90% Marginal Rates Posted by: gellero1
» RE: 90% Marginal Rates Posted by: yellow
Think Your "Happy Thought"...
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Nov 17, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and maybe you can make this economy fly!

>>"The point is that relying on the magic of the marketplace is like relying on any other kind of magic."

And the real problem is that our elite business schools -- who's graduates fill our major corporations and government -- are taught this Tinkerbell nonsense. Who will be able to step into an Obama economic advisory counsel who can speak credibly who has not been conditioned to "think magically"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Think Your "Happy Thought"... Posted by: elidude420
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes! Nothing Else Matters?
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 17, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The singular focus on taxes as the be-all, end-all of economics and politics may be one of the great absurdities of our era.

We cut taxes on the rich on the dubious theory that the rich are entrepreneurs and that it will make capital available for these entrepreneurs.

There are so many thing wrong with this concept, not just the notion that our entrepreneurs are already rich when they start out. By and large they are actually people with ideas but not much money. Taking from the poor to give to the rich will often keep budding entrepreneurs from pursuing their dreams.

That aside, for a business to thrive it does need capital, but it also needs customers with money to spend. It needs infrastructure of various sorts - a postal system, good roads, rail, air and water transport systems, media, etc.

Just having capital is not enough. It is especially foolish to structure our tax system to provide capital to people who may not really be entrepreneurs, at the expense of taking money away from potential customers and allowing the infrastructure to crumble.

We need to take a larger and more sensible approach to rebuilding the economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only hinted at in the article
Posted by: truthlover on Nov 17, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very rich people who intend to remain rich do not spend most of their money on small, local purchases. They save it, or invest it; they are also the most likely people to move money abroad. In short, the vast amount of a rich person’s money will remain within the circle of rich people, and NOT flow out into the general economy.

If these rich people pay more taxes, they still have plenty left, but their taxes will go into projects that hopefully benefit the community (including said rich people, as noted in the article), and the money that is paid to the employees of those projects will make its way into the local economy.

One would hope that not too much tax money will go towards “wasteful stupidities”, of course, but in the worst case scenario, even if it does, if it is spent on domestic projects, someone is going to be employed and paid real money to (for instance) take care of the museum: this someone probably needs the money to live on, and will therefore spend it on real things, like food, fuel, clothing, etc., and a lot of it will pass from the museum employee to others in the local economy, thus stimulating it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michigan
Posted by: dockboy on Nov 17, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yup. Hight taxes are great. Michigan has some of the highest state income taxes in the country. Look how solid its economy is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Swing the hammer!
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 17, 2008 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure I buy into this. There are many factors affecting the econmomy. Tax increases do not stand alone as a driving force.

If I take $1 out of my business and it turns into $.50 I dont leave it in and reinvest it.. I still have to live..I cut my spending and raise my prices to where I can live! Not a great wat to grow the economy.

A tax cut by itself doesn't guarantee the economy will grow either. You target it to sectors of the economy that drive growth.. Capital investment, hiring etc. We also have a world economy. What happens in other markets affects our economy as well!

In my opinion, I'd bet that taxes do not necessarily drive/effect economic recovery as much as other factors do!

It's just a great political hammer to use by repubs against the dems!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Swing the hammer! Posted by: greenknight
Higher taxes on who?
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 17, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Higher taxes and lower income on the poor reduces their spending. If necessary you can do without doctors, heat, and anything higher on the food chain than spaghetti.

Higher taxes on the rich does not reduce their annual spending, it merely reduces their Roth Plan contributions and tax dodge investment power. They don't ever forgo the new mainsail on the boat.

The U.S. economy goes into a tailspin when people curtail their spending. The solution is to give away money to the poor so that they can afford doctors, heat, and zucchini with Parmesan cheese on the spaghetti sauce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quoting Laffer is always good for a laugh
Posted by: jbowen43 on Nov 17, 2008 11:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually people did pay the 90 per cent tax rate. Some like Elvis Presley got rich while paying that rate. Some like Ronald Reagan refused to work after they made their first 200 thousand dollars each year. That left work available for other, better actors. How is that for a benefit of higher taxes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not high or low but levy what?
Posted by: Geonomist on Nov 17, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His analysis still assumes infinite growth is good and people deserve no more than to be workers perpetually. The former is not possible, the latter insane. There's nothing wrong with profit taking. It's why people start a business, to earn a profit to take a vacation, send a kid to college, whatever. More sensible than to try to tax income downstream is to tax certain spending targets upstream. That is, we could lose taxes on earnings and still preclude one's bidding up a bubble by charging full market value for land titles and patents and corporate charters and emission permits and the like (perhaps by taxing or by fees). The value of a location is socially-generated and should be socially-collected all along. Then you'd have plenty of money for infrastructure and truly desired government. And if you get rid of wasteful and distorting subsidies, you'd also have enough to pay a dividend, so people could live fully, and get over this blind addiction to economics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bad Idea Posted by: Pissed Off Woman
Great Article
Posted by: sanity on Nov 17, 2008 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is perhaps the best article I have ever read on Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So If Paying Taxes Is A Good Thing
Posted by: left_libertarian on Nov 17, 2008 8:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why am I forced with the threat of jail, to do so?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

orthodoxy no accident
Posted by: mwildfire on Nov 18, 2008 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So why do we always have these destructive tax and economic policies? Because politicians turn to the most knowledgeable people in the field of economics to advise them on economic policy. Only logical. And who are these learned economists? They are graduates of economics programs which put forth the "science" of economics--only it's not a science, it's actually a religion, one which preaches that The Market is God and will benefit everyone in the end if allowed to flow freely (that is, without government regulation for the public good). It doesn't matter if the real world fails to confirm this orthodoxy--the schools will keep preaching these theories anyway. It doesn't matter if the results are catastrophic. They'll stick to the orthodoxy. And why is this? because these theories are designed to make the rich richer and as long as they do that, the economics schools will continue to get big bequests and funding for the Chair of Thisorthat, etc. The economists truly believe, because after all they were taught all this in prestigious schools, so it must be true, mustn't it? Why would they keep teaching theories that have been proven to be wrong? Answer: because this leads to policies that benefit the very few--who set the teaching curriculum to perpetuate the situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush raised taxes. He is a high tax rate president
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Nov 18, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By borrowing and spending, he allowed the Fed to print more money and destroy the value of the dollar. In doing so, he drove the cost of commodities up. Since we're forced to buy commodities in order to live, this is a de facto tax. You'd have to be living in a plastic bubble for the last 8 years to not see the price increases I'm talking about. That was a deliberate matter of policy, thus it must be counted as a tax. Taxes have actually been higher under Bush than under Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hah
Posted by: JS85 on Nov 18, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A) Actually, tax receipts have increased every year since the Bush Tax Cuts. The Laffer Curve doesn't claim to promote economic growth. It applies to tax revenues.

B) Your use of your own experience might apply to you, but does not necessarily apply to all. In the face of extraordinarily high taxes, some business owners might invest in business, others might find loopholes, of which there were very, very many in the pre-Reagan high tax era. So really any evidence you give about high tax rates stimulating growth are shoddy at best considering the 70-90% rates were never real tax rates. People dodged around them like Barry Sanders.

C) There was no real economic growth in 30s. It was all funded by the Federal Government. Unemployment was still sky high, and people were still generally miserable. Just because GDP falsely went up, it doesn't mean FDRs had a positive effect on the economy. Also, I don't know how you threw '36 into the mix of "economic growth" we hit another GDP contraction in '37.

D) JFK cut taxes mildly to positive effect.

E) Boom and bust are the naturaly part of an economy. They cannot be, nor have they ever been prevented by high tax rates.

F) The economy tanked after in '92. Then it was so bad after Clinton raised taxes in '93, the Republicans were swept into Congress on promises of cutting taxes.

Clinton then cut taxes. This created a boom, bubble and bust. This happened in spite of the fact that tax rates were higher than they had been in the previous decade.

E)"The places that government puts money are important."

And here's where you argument goes to the absurd. Important to whom? The people who happen to agree with them? What about those who disagree?

The idea of government as a benevolent moral leader is a dangerous one. It only leads nations down a destructive path.

I don't know if it was poorly researched, or if the author just glossed over facts in order to pull the wool over readers' eyes. Either way, it's a shoddy article at best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Author Lacks Basic Understanding of Economics
Posted by: MaxAndroid on Nov 18, 2008 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taxation has 2 effects: it reduces consumption and it reduces production. It reduces consumption because taxing a consumer leave him with less money to spend. It reduces production because it reduces the capital of wealthy people who create jobs and invest in the resources that enable productivity, etc.

Both of these effects will always work to reduce the material quality of life of every individual except the most very wealthy because they will always be able to consume, albeit at a greater cost.

Furthermore, it is still possible to have "economic growth" even when there is taxation but it must be understood that taxation will always reduces the net effect of productive growth had their been no taxation at all. In other words, the economy can still grow in spite of having high tax rates it is just the matter of degree it will be effected. It also must be pointed out that just because taxes are lowered doesn't necessarily mean there will be more economic growth -- there is always a chance for malinvestment in any market no matter the tax rates.

The funny thing is that taxation is so unnecessary since we have seen proof that the federal government will just have the Fed Reserve print it whatever money it wants...though that is still taxation to a lesser degree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

money
Posted by: eurmoney on Nov 18, 2008 4:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taxes but a stranglehold on the average consumer during a struggling economy while corporation leaders can afford to ride out making corporate budget cuts that affect the peon worker. It's a lose-lose for the little man and just a nuisance for the rich fat cats. money moves the world

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A mixed bag
Posted by: zephyrxero on Nov 19, 2008 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Honestly, arguments can be made for either side; both extremes have pros and cons...and like in most situations I think a balance between the two is usually best. I'm no economics expert, but it does work when you take all the real world factors (as mentioned in the article) into account rather than just manipulating the numbers for the sake of someone's bottom line. All economics basically does is apply the laws of nature (survival of the fittest) to business. Now of course, it has also been proven time and time again that nature's definition of "fittest" does not always mean the same thing as what we would perceive it to mean...and this is where regulation comes into play (ie..anti-trust).

I'm actually all for taxing businesses/entities. What you say is true; if the company spends more on expenses rather than trying to make as much profit as possible it can certainly lead to better R&D as well as better paid employees...however, that would also go in favor of the millionaire CEOs too as far as business expenses go. Still in the end, I'm all for taxing businesses as long as it's on a graduated or exponential scale. Linear taxation (sometimes referred to as a "flat tax", although there's more to it than that) will never work.

I am much more for cutting individuals' taxes...specifically in income taxes. If you only make minimum wage or below the poverty line you should pay 0% taxes. Once you're past that $20,000/yr hump or whatever you might set it at, the tax scale would start with a very low percentage...something around 1% if not less and slowly grow, creating a parabolic scale where once you hit the top 1% it peaks much much higher than the median income was. Now that said, I probably wouldn't go over 50% for neither businesses nor individuals at the highest. There's going to be a point where looking at the utilitarian big picture, no one is benefiting anymore and I'd personally wager that's somewhere around 50%...but who knows, maybe it's more like 75%. Still needless to say...with a parabolic graduation, 90% of businesses (including all small-medium businesses) wouldn't pay that much tax at all, while monster-sized corporations like Microsoft and Walmart would have to pay for their epically bloated sizes. I do believe a truely-free market wouldn't allow for these ultra-corps, but that would also require a very well informed and activist population and human nature just won't allow for that...not as the mainstream norm at least.

But once again, when it comes to individuals I'm much more wary towards taxation. Perhaps follow a similar system here, but instead the top 1% highest earners would only pay something like 10-25% while the vast majority of Americans would pay practically nothing. Using this system (real quick & dirty math here), if the top 1% pays 25% of their income into taxes, the median income (roughly $50,000) would only pay something like 3.9% which amounts to around $2,000. I think that sounds reasonable...

I think the number one problem with Americans and our tax systems is that we don't trust our goverment to spend our money properly. If we felt our money was going towards things we could enjoy we'd probably all feel much easier paying them; however, most of us don't trust the politicians to spend it properly. We (self included) tend to have a view that it will be wasted on useless pointless things or swung over to our official's buddies ala Iraq/Bush/Chenny/Haliburton.

Another thing that bothers me is how our medicare and social security payments are made seperate from our "regular" taxes. I think that's complete b.s. and if someone's slinging burgers for minimum wage they shouldn't have to pay a penny towards these systems which have no refunds.

Anyway, that's enough rambling for me...interesting article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it's marginal rates
Posted by: neutrinoX on Nov 20, 2008 12:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the comments seem to be missing the idea that the author is discussing marginal rates. The idea is not to tax everyone into poverty. High marginal rates kick in over something like several million a year.

One thing I really liked about this article was the description of how the government spends money. The way the right spins it you'd think that all taxes simply went into a big shredder. In fact the government, which is us, is charged with taking care of the common areas. Keeping the air and water clean, protecting the boarders, etc. Investing in those things has useful benefits.

This is a fascinating post. I hope there is more discussion about this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

90% tax rate on the rich?!
Posted by: Levon on Nov 20, 2008 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
no wonder they sunk all that money into think tanks and bought off all those economists and politicians - they were really pissed!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

UMMM
Posted by: Kyler on Nov 21, 2008 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well I don't understand how you can count the depression era tax hike as positive? they probably played a key role in prolonging the depression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WOW...Alternet is addressing humanism/Humanism and tax issues
Posted by: blondesprite on Nov 23, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally a true Humanist article and discussion! I am so very proud of Alternet and all comment posters.

Prior to the second term of Bush I had a family member question my beliefs and political preferences.
Her presumption was, that if I did not support Bush's so-called Christian ideology and his attendant tax cuts, how could I be a good (Christian) person?
The following was my response and represents the crux of this entire article.

In a nutshell, all of humanity is floating on a raft we dubbed Earth.
We can all pull together, share and survive together, or we can play king-of-the-hill forever, and continue plotting and scheming who will be thrown off the raft and in what order.
Historically, the first to be thrown off the raft were women, children, the poor in general, the terminally ill, the continually sick and frail or the uneducated.
The John-by-God Wayne hero worshipping types would argue differently. Yes, there have been uncommon (unfortunately) acts of heroism and some of them have been acts committed, I am sure, by Republicans.

However, the most important Christ-Principal (from an agnostic) and in my humble opinion, is rarely discussed openly in Republican circles.

That is to say, take really good care of the so-called "least among us" and they will take really good care of you.
Thank you Mr. Beinhart and Alternet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]