Skip to comments.Sachs: 'Victor Davis Hanson Has Done More Harm To American People' Than Any Other Commentator
Posted on 12/23/2010 6:07:54 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Jeffrey Sachs has attacked distinguished military historian Victor Davis Hanson as an "extremist" who "has done more harm to the American people" than any other commentator.
Sachs, a Columbia prof and income redistributionist supreme, launched his surprising verbal assault in commenting on Hanson's National Review Online column, "The Obamites' About-Face." Hanson there makes the case that out of political pragmatism, Obama has flip-flopped on everything from "the environment, radical Islam, taxes, stimulus, the economy, national security" to foreign policy.
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Left-wing prof calls Victor Davis Hanson an “extremist” who has “done more harm to the American people” than any other commentator.
I treasure everything that Victor David Hanson writes. I agree with most of his opinions.
It’s just so unbelievable that someone like Sachs, ostensibly with a high IQ (albeit wrong about everything), cannot think of an appropriate way to respond to an article he disagrees with other than hysterical ad hominem charges of this sort. It’s disgraceful.
Hanson is who is and Jeffrey Sachs is who he is, a nothing.
Gee, I wonder why they don't...
Jeffrey “Ball” Sachs - must be the sharpest bulb in the tool shed.
VDH PING! What a Christmas present for Victor Davis Hanson. To be singled out by a Marxist professor as a Lib's "Worst Person in the World". What a tribute! VDH forever; Geoffrey 'Goldman' Sachs never.
Keep up the good work!
He looks like Dan Fielding. Except Dan was a lot smarter. It must suck for a guy like Sachs who can never think on his own. He will always be a colorless face in the lefty stable.
VDH is the absolute best. An educator that used to lean left, then grew up. And boy did he grow into a fine guy.
Thanks, TC: and Merry Christmas to you.
That’s rich. VDH is evil and has done harm to us poor, unwashed idiots. We really should only listen to the wise, good-hearted sages in leftist academia. After all they only have our best interests at heart. [sigh] If only we idiots knew better.
Sachs is pissy because VDH frequently ridicules achedemia and their mindless liberalism. He knows of what he speaks, having spent much time at Stanford Univ among others.
Reading VDH is like a breath of sanity in a world gone mad.
VDH ping (if you haven’t seen already).
The prof is what I call a “Zen Liberal”.
I wonder if his wife takes out tonsils just to rack up the bill? Did the Sachs family take any offense when Obama said that or did she stop taking out tonsils out of guilt?
BTW, I know pediatricians don't take out tonsils....
Because the constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to tax wealth. Fortunately.
BTW, that’s why we have an “inheritance tax”, and not an “estate tax”.
A tax on an estate would be a wealth tax, and the feds have no authority. A tax on “inheritance” is a type of income tax, which they can do under the 16th amendment.
Victor Davis Hanson - somebody.
Jeffrey Sach-munch - nobody.
I have no use for a crypto communist like Sachs. On the other hand, Hanson is a neo con, and one of those who argued us into the position we are in where we are overstreached and bankrupt. Dr. Hanson knows and knew far better than that because he wrote about the collapse of the Athenian empire when they became overstretched and started to defend the periphery, which they could not afford, thereby losing the core of their Empire and existence.
A lot of the time Dr. Hanson writes tellingly, but no competent scholar would make the egregious error that he made. We are going to be paying for Bush's escapades for several decades.
I think they figured out a way. They call it the death tax.
That's not the reason.
There are 535 examples of why we don't go where the money is sitting right there on Capitol Hill.
If pols were taxed based on their wealth instead of the income, they might not be so eager to keep raising taxes.
How much longer before we take away this soft, nondemanding, wholly unproductive lifestyle from these no-talent Commie “professors”.
Their easy, safe and protected existence is largely provided on our backs after all.
A very valid question.
Taxing wealth, while probably not totally fair (I'd have to think about it), is MUCH better than taxing income, even with a flat RATE scheme, which is usually mistakenly referred to as a “Flat Tax”.
Sachs is quite an screwball if he really thinks that telling the truth does harm.
Just my opinion of course.
Sachs is spelled wrong, I have it on good authority that it’s “u”, not an “a.”
Soros could have not have wreaked the havoc he did in Eastern Europe, without Jeffrey Sachs and his “shock therapy”. These cruel individuals continue to boast about it. What better example of Sachs than to witness him taking the good character of another - it’s what Marxists do in order to hide their own evil.
And someone like VDH understands what passes for leftist thinking far better than anyone who has never been a liberal. That makes for very insightful commentary.
Like 0bama, Sachs is a stooge of George Soros.
Googling “Jeffrey Sachs” and “George Soros” pulls up a plethora of articles linking the two.
They tax both.
Lots of areas & states also have ‘personal property taxes’ on everything they own.
Because what they truly want is a feudalist system.
They don’t want anyone else accumulating wealth.
I’m a huge VDH fan, and I must say to Professor Hanson, You must be doing something right; you know you’re over the target when you’re taking flak.
Which part of the American populace dreamed up “Trusts’ to be put into place instead of just plain wills?????
I want to know who will eventually have to pay the taxes that this generation of people with trusts are so fond of?
I have a neighbor who insists that he needed a trust because probate would drag out for tens of years on his estate!!!
The man has a small property with a 35 ++ year old manufactured home on it, 2 trucks which don’t total $15,000 in calue, a very old llama & a pasture pet horse.
His entire estate isn’t worth $30,000 & he tries to talk like he ‘had to get a trust’ & so should everybody else!!!
The answer is easy if you go back to the book (Marx’s The Communist Manifesto)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Marx takes care wealth in Rule 3
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Rule 4 is where they come for us.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
“Lots of areas & states also have personal property taxes on everything they own.”
Here in Missouri the thieving PP Tax is just on cars, boats and motorcycles I believe.
Do you mean there are some states that actually scour the entire personal balance sheet?
A younger looking version of total Lefty Robert Redford.
“They dont want anyone else accumulating wealth.”
:Nodding in agreement: Taxing income keeps the strivers at bay — those noveau riche types who simply can’t be allowed in. Taxing wealth — now that would threaten the trust funds of “our sort of people.” Can’t have that...
I guess that makes me an extremist too because I agree with about 99% of what VDH writes, and no other commentator today can hold a candle to him imho. VDH’s vast knowledge of the history of civilization, and his ability to apply the lessons of the past to our modern times is unparalleled.
You know that in junior high this guy heard “Sachs sucks!” all the time.
He was visiting/speaking at NPS when I was out there and he is a JEWEL!!!!
LOL - Flak ... target.
So basically Sachs is saying that his tiny brain can’t even begin to engage VDH’s actual argument, leaving him with only the ability to make nasty, unsupported attacks on Hanson.
And why is this guy important? The opinions of leftist professors is like the wind out of a duck’s behind.
Sorry to disagree, but you're wrong -- at least as concerns federal taxes:
When a U.S. person dies, the executor of the deceased's estate pays a federal tax. The heirs pay nothing. In computing the federal tax, neither the IRS nor the executor takes into account the wealth or income of any heir.
The next step is that the heirs or "beneficiaries" will be allowed to share whatever is left over, according either (A) to the deceased's will, or (B) in the absence of a will, according to per stirpes rules in the state or other jurisdiction where the deceased resided.
Now here's the crucial point of distinction between the federal estate tax and an inheritance tax:
Under federal law, the heirs don't owe any tax on what they get. An heir can be the richest person in the USA or the poorest. It makes no difference. Either way, he pays nothing. On the other hand, if we had a federal inheritance tax, then the heirs could be taxed directly -- perhaps on an equal percentage basis, on a "progressive taxation" basis, or even on a per capita basis.
To be sure, in some countries the legal system uses the term "inheritance tax" to refer to what actually is an estate tax. Also, it's certainly common for lay people in the USA to use the terms "estate tax" and "inheritance tax" interchangeably and incorrectly. In other words, confusion is rife.
Finally, there are some states of the USA that levy "inheritance taxes" on heirs -- taxes that are computed after the federal tax has taken its bite from an estate. So if you're a putative heir who lives in one of these states, and if you have a very rich bachelor uncle who's in his nineties, move to Texas or Florida while you still have time!