The GOP Deserves to Lose

[DarrinS]

I couldn't agree more.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577178594236642420.html?m od=rss_opinion_main




The GOP Deserves to Lose
That's what happens when you run with losers.

Let's just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.

It doesn't matter that Mr. Obama can't get the economy out of second gear. It doesn't matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn't matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn't matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn't matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn't matter that the result of his "reset" with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn't matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn't matter that his wife thinks America doesn't deserve him. It doesn't matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn't going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

Above all, it doesn't matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won't be another fiasco. But they can't be reasonably sure, so it's going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.

As for the current GOP field, it's like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

That's my theory for why South Carolina gave Newt Gingrich his big primary win on Saturday: Voters instinctively prefer the idea of an entertaining Newt-Obama contest—the aspiring Caesar versus the failed Redeemer—over a dreary Mitt-Obama one. The problem is that voters also know that Gaius Gingrich is liable to deliver his prime-time speeches in purple toga while holding tight to darling Messalina's—sorry, Callista's—bejeweled fingers. A primary ballot for Mr. Gingrich is a vote for an entertaining election, not a Republican in the White House.

Then there is Mitt Romney, even now the presumptive nominee. If Mr. Gingrich demonstrated his unfitness to be a serious Republican nominee with his destructive attacks on private equity (a prime legacy of the Reagan years), Mr. Romney has demonstrated his unfitness by—where to start?

Oh, yes, the moment in last week's debate when Mr. Romney equivocated about releasing his tax returns. The former Massachusetts governor is nothing if not a scripted politician, and the least one can ask of such people is that they should know their lines by heart. Did nobody in Mr. Romney's expensive campaign shop tell him that this question was sure to come, and that a decision had to be made, in advance, as to what the answer would be? Great CEOs don't just surround themselves with consultants and advance men. They also hire contrarians, alter egos and at least someone who isn't afraid to poke a finger in their chest. On the evidence of his campaign, Mr. Romney is a lousy CEO.

But it's worse than that. The usual rap on Mr. Romney is that he's robotic, but the real reason he can't gain traction with voters is that they suspect he's concealing some unnameable private doubt. Al Gore and George Bush Sr. were like that, too, and not just because they were all to the proverbial manor born. It's that they were basically hollow men.

Thus the core difference between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama: For the governor, the convictions are the veneer. For the president, the pragmatism is. Voters always see through this. They usually prefer the man who stands for something.

What about Rick Santorum and Ron Paul? They are owed some respect, especially for the contrast between their willingness to take a stand for principle against the front-runners' willingness to say anything. But Messrs. Santorum and Paul are two tedious men, deep in conversation with some country that's not quite America, appealing to a devoted base but not beyond it. Sorry, gentlemen: You're not going anywhere.

Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn't because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November—or, rather, when he does—the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.

What should readers who despair of a second Obama term make of all this? Hope ObamaCare is repealed by the High Court, the Iranian bomb is repealed by the Israeli Air Force, and the Senate switches hands, giving America a healthy spell of Hippocratic government.

All perfectly plausible. And the U.S. will surely survive four more years. Who knows? By then maybe Republicans will have figured out that if they don't want to lose, they shouldn't run with losers.

[boutons_deux]

"It doesn't matter that Mr. Obama can't get the economy out of second gear"

Since when do the WSG, Repugs, conservatives EXPECT a President to do anything about the economy, esp the 99%'s economy?

btw, the stimulus lessened the Repug Banksters Great Depression, but the REPUGS made a bigger stimulus, appropriate to the size of THEIR depression, like $2T, impossible.

Haley Barbour, corrupt Souther porker racist, as Repug A-Teamer? :lol

Paul Ryan, Medicare destroyer, as Repug A-Teamer? :lol

Repugs got NO ONE with Presidential calibre.

[JoeChalupa]

The stimulus did save jobs and even Mitt has admitted that the economy is doing better.

[boutons_deux]

"stimulus did save jobs"

conservatives, Repug, tea baggers ALL deny the Keynsian/counter-cyclical stimulus was ever capable of helping the economy. Repugs wanted to use the last bit of stimulus to pay down the deficit, which does NOTHING for the economy. A single admission from Willard Gecko doesn't change any of that.

[JoeChalupa]

With the huge advantage the GOP has I am shocked that Christie or Ryan didn't get in the race. This should be a guarantee win for them but Obama still has support and can win this.

[z0sa]

Too much pandering to the religious right will be the party's downfall. The classic conservative couldn't give a shit about gay marriage, for example. Let a person marry whoever he or she wants to. All a TRUE conservative should care about is limiting and ultimately changing the oligarchical spending structure in place and ending the crazy wars. I'd go further and say a real conservative, respecting the sovereignty of the individual, would be extremely worried about our people being felt up at airports because their muffins are slightly more gelatinous than usual.

[Drachen]

Too much pandering to the religious right will be the party's downfall. The classic conservative couldn't give a shit about gay marriage, for example. Let a person marry whoever he or she wants to. All a TRUE conservative should care about is limiting and ultimately changing the oligarchical spending structure in place and ending the crazy wars. I'd go further and say a real conservative, respecting the sovereignty of the individual, would be extremely worried about our people being felt up at airports because their muffins are slightly more gelatinous than usual.

I have been saying this for a while. I thought that republican X would have an excellent chance to win the general election as long as republicans y and z don't make everyone talk about social issues.

It is their own fault. They had a president who was fully willing to work across the aisle and demonstrated such, but they rebuked him to the detriment of the nation.

[JoeChalupa]

If each party wasn't so damn worried about getting re-elected things may just get done. I was with Huntsman on term limits!!

[Winehole23]

Republicans getting older, electorate getting younger. Something's gotta give.

[boutons_deux]

"If each party wasn't so damn worried about getting re-elected"

getting re-elected means getting re-financed, so they are non-stop campaigning and raising money (being corrupted by pay-to-play contributions).

[Wild Cobra]

The Tea party ideals need to take over the republican party.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn't going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

The Tea party ideals need to take over the republican party.

Please define what YOU think the Tea Party ideals are.

[JoeChalupa]

If the GOP doesn't win the White House it will be one of the biggest upsets in US History.

[DarrinS]

If the GOP doesn't win the White House it will be one of the biggest upsets in US History.


Why? Did you not read the OP?

[DarrinS]

There's no Reagan to run against this Carter.

[mercos]

Populist anger has turned against Republican economic principles. The public is still steamed about the bailouts and foreclosure crisis. The initial anger at the banks has carried over to include anyone who is wealthy. That is why almost every poll shows a vast majority of Americans favor increasing taxes on the rich. Every GOP candidate supports lowering the top tax rates.

As the health care debate of 2009-2010 and subsequent electoral losses for the Dems showed, its not wise to go against the public's opinion. If Obama rides this public anger wave and fans the flames of "class warfare" then he has a very good chance of winning an election he would otherwise lose.

[Winehole23]

There's no Reagan to run against this Carter.No more Reagans in the party of Reagan?

What a sad state of affairs.

[Winehole23]

lol sandbagging "first teamers"

[CosmicCowboy]

Populist anger has turned against Republican economic principles. The public is still steamed about the bailouts and foreclosure crisis. The initial anger at the banks has carried over to include anyone who is wealthy. That is why almost every poll shows a vast majority of Americans favor increasing taxes on the rich. Every GOP candidate supports lowering the top tax rates.

As the health care debate of 2009-2010 and subsequent electoral losses for the Dems showed, its not wise to go against the public's opinion. If Obama rides this public anger wave and fans the flames of "class warfare" then he has a very good chance of winning an election he would otherwise lose.

I'm not sure that a majority of the people hate the rich. Either way, what a pathetic pandering POS to make class warfare the centerpiece of his campaign.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not sure that a majority of the people hate the rich. Either way, what a pathetic pandering POS to make class warfare the centerpiece of his campaign.How is it not the centerpiece of the Republican campaign?

[clambake]

you wanna bail them out again?

[CosmicCowboy]

How is it not the centerpiece of the Republican campaign?

I don't see how you can equate a no new taxes position with class warfare...what exactly were you referring to?

[clambake]

he saying that "class warfare" is a republican mantra.

and he's right.

[CosmicCowboy]

he saying that "class warfare" is a republican mantra.

and he's right.

hmmm....*thinking about that*

I can see where the conservatives/republicans prefer individual solutions as opposed to government solutions (read that personal responsibility and offering the opportunity for personal responsibility) but am not sure I see that as being class warfare.

I'm open for my mind to be changed.

Can you give me specific platform items that are clearly class warfare?

[Wild Cobra]

No more Reagans in the party of Reagan?

What a sad state of affairs.
It hasn't been the party of Reagan for a very long time.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see how you can equate a no new taxes position with class warfare...what exactly were you referring to?Yeah, that's the only thing they have ever said. :rolleyes

Republicans are just as guilty of class warfare as Democrats, it's just that you don't want to call it that.

[Winehole23]

It hasn't been the party of Reagan for a very long time.when did it stop, in your opinion?

[JoeChalupa]

It hasn't been the party of Reagan for a very long time.

Reagan wouldn't win the GOP nomination today.

[boutons_deux]

"I can see where the conservatives/republicans prefer individual solutions as opposed to government solutions"

bullshit, "class warfare" in Repug mouths is for dishonestly attacking the 99% for bitching about the 1%'s highly successful, relentless class warfare on the 99%.

the Repugs LOVE and DEFEND govt when its policies redistribute wealth from the 99% to the 1%.

[CosmicCowboy]

"I can see where the conservatives/republicans prefer individual solutions as opposed to government solutions"

bullshit, "class warfare" in Repug mouths is for dishonestly attacking the 99% for bitching about the 1%'s highly successful, relentless class warfare on the 99%.

the Repugs LOVE and DEFEND govt when its policies redistribute wealth from the 99% to the 1%.

I was asking the sane adults...

[clambake]

I'm not sure that a majority of the people hate the rich. Either way, what a pathetic pandering POS to make class warfare the centerpiece of his campaign.


I was asking the sane adults...

it boils down to what happened to our economy, and marcus bryant said it best.

"any country worth it's own salt would hang these guys by the neck"

[CosmicCowboy]

"any country worth it's own salt would hang these guys by the neck"

:lol

Yeah, I'm not saying I particularly like either side...it just boils down to hocking and spitting and then voting for the one you dislike the least.

[Winehole23]

I don't see how you can equate a no new taxes position with class warfare...what exactly were you referring to?Tax cutting is redistribution of wealth on a progressive scale; whoever pays the most, gets the most back.

[Winehole23]

I would imagine you are already aware of how powerful an inducement that can be for well-to-do voters to favor one party over the other. Rational self interest, right?

[CosmicCowboy]

Tax cutting is redistribution of wealth on a progressive scale; whoever pays the most, gets the most back.

At the same time, they all pay less tax.

I'm not saying that revenue can be completely ignored in the equation, but I give spending more of the blame for our current economic condition than a lack of revenue.

[Winehole23]

At the same time, they all pay less tax. what a Romneyesque thing to say

[boutons_deux]

"spending more of the blame for our current economic condition than a lack of revenue."

not surprised you'd propagate the Repug lie.

Spending would be

Repugs subsidizing Medicare advantage,

Repugs forbidding Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate as single-buyer with BigPharma

Repugs starting/botching two wars (about $2T worth, and counting)

Repugs (tax-spending) cutting $1T - $2T in income taxes since 2001.

The Banksters Great Depression has certainly reduced tax revenues at all levels, but that's still not "spending".

Try again, liar.

And tell where you want to cut the "spending".

[EVAY]

At the same time, they all pay less tax.

I'm not saying that revenue can be completely ignored in the equation, but I give spending more of the blame for our current economic condition than a lack of revenue.

But the problem with your position, CC, as I see it, is that the majority party in the House DOES ignore the revenue side of the equation in their pledges to Grover Norquist, so compromise from the other side (entitlement reform) looks like a cave in, so nothing at all gets done.

Four tax cuts between 2001 and 2010, combined with two unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare Part D (which needed to be done but wasn't offset with other spending cuts), TARP ( passed at the request of a Republican Administration) before you ever GET to the Stimulus Plan, suggest to me that revenue development is as critical to getting this solved as expenditure reductions. But one side WILL NOT consider tax increases.

[Winehole23]

the majority party in the House DOES ignore the revenue side of the equation in their pledges to Grover Norquist, so compromise from the other side (entitlement reform) looks like a cave in, so nothing at all gets done.CC doesn't ignore it, whereas the people he votes for do. So in a sense, CC is off the hook for this.

[4>0rings]

Nobody that can win will run for the GOP because they know the depression is going to continue and they wouldn't be able to do shit. Why preside over a giant turd of an economy that can't be fixed in the next 4 years and be known as a crappy President?

[Winehole23]

That's the theory, but in the meantime the Dems keep the presidency and what if things get better?

[DarkReign]

Nobody that can win will run for the GOP because they know the depression is going to continue and they wouldn't be able to do shit. Why preside over a giant turd of an economy that can't be fixed in the next 4 years and be known as a crappy President?

Basically what I came to say. The GOP "A Team" wisely ducked this election and let the also-rans and not-a-chance-in-hells have their day in the sun.

They can then run their campaigns without an incumbent getting in the way and most likely win with relative ease.

Because really, what is a Democrat after Obama? Who has any mass appeal to actually win an election beyond him? Hillary? Pelosi?!:rollin

Obama will be rubber-stamped his second term, the economy will continue down the shitter, joblessness will stay about the same or get worse, wars will end and begin anew and this entire cycle of shit will start over again under the promises of another Noob with quick wit and a slick-dick smile.

Boutons may be many things, but he is (imo) always been correct about one thing.

This country is fucked and unfuckable. I say lets ride this train until the tracks run out and let some Eurasian country take the reins afterword. Im sure they'll remind the world very quickly how much better it was when the Americans were running the show, but by then, who fucking cares?

I'll be dead and gone, the can will have been kicked beyond my lifetime letting me enjoy the zenith of human existence as one of the last generations to do so. No one had it as good as we currently do. Drink up, youre one of the last at this drying watering hole.

[clambake]

did you just say pelosi?

[ElNono]

Chris Christie is A-Team? He's more of the same. He was more of the same before endorsing Romney. Actually jumping in the lead of endorsements and backing Romney was the natural choice for him.

[DJ Mbenga]

if the way right wingers didnt scare off the moderates somebody like jeb bush would rape obama

[101A]

basically what i came to say. The gop "a team" wisely ducked this election and let the also-rans and not-a-chance-in-hells have their day in the sun.

They can then run their campaigns without an incumbent getting in the way and most likely win with relative ease.

Because really, what is a democrat after obama? Who has any mass appeal to actually win an election beyond him? Hillary? Pelosi?!:rollin

obama will be rubber-stamped his second term, the economy will continue down the shitter, joblessness will stay about the same or get worse, wars will end and begin anew and this entire cycle of shit will start over again under the promises of another noob with quick wit and a slick-dick smile.

Boutons may be many things, but he is (imo) always been correct about one thing.

This country is fucked and unfuckable. I say lets ride this train until the tracks run out and let some eurasian country take the reins afterword. Im sure they'll remind the world very quickly how much better it was when the americans were running the show, but by then, who fucking cares?

I'll be dead and gone, the can will have been kicked beyond my lifetime letting me enjoy the zenith of human existence as one of the last generations to do so. No one had it as good as we currently do. Drink up, youre one of the last at this drying watering hole.

/ftw

[Nbadan]

Four tax cuts between 2001 and 2010, combined with two unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare Part D (which needed to be done but wasn't offset with other spending cuts), TARP ( passed at the request of a Republican Administration) before you ever GET to the Stimulus Plan, suggest to me that revenue development is as critical to getting this solved as expenditure reductions. But one side WILL NOT consider tax increases

...and there you have it....too many voters who don't watch Faux News already know that Obama isn't to blame for the size of the national debt.... those where policies put in place by the Bush administration... and cuts in military spending are required to meet $1 trillion in cuts demanded by the tea party wingnuts during the last debt extention....

[Winehole23]

No one had it as good as we currently do. Drink up, youre one of the last at this drying watering hole. I'd like to disagree with this, but I'm not sure I do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'd like to disagree with this, but I'm not sure I do.

A quarter of the population is going to be dying over the next twenty years. They currently run the GOP for the most part, dominate the electorate and are more and more active, and all the while are collectively the worst generation in a century.

Right now they are leeching off the rest of us and dictating policy. As they die off the tax burden for the rest of us will lessen and positions of power will be left to people who will be hard pressed to do worse. That being said the next twenty years as they enter the geriatric years will be terrible.

Fiat in unfair and usurous policies is their policy and they dominate the electorate.

[greyforest]

hmmm....*thinking about that*

I can see where the conservatives/republicans prefer individual solutions as opposed to government solutions (read that personal responsibility and offering the opportunity for personal responsibility) but am not sure I see that as being class warfare.

I'm open for my mind to be changed.

Can you give me specific platform items that are clearly class warfare?


Class Warfare - conflict between social or economic classes (especially between the capitalist and proletariat classes)

http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4e9460a6ecad04797a00000a-590/in-fact-income-inequality-has-gotten-so-extreme-here-that-the-us-now-ranks-93rd-in-the-world-in-income-equality-chinas-ahead-of-us-so-is-india-so-is-iran.jpg

http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4e9460a669bedd444100002f-590/ceo-pay-has-skyrocketed-300-since-1990-corporate-profits-have-doubled-average-production-worker-pay-has-increased-4-the-minimum-wage-has-dropped-all-numbers-adjusted-for-inflation.jpg

http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4cd7fa4e4bd7c8d60a040000-590/of-course-life-is-great-if-youre-in-the-top-1-of-american-wage-earners-youre-hauling-in-a-bigger-percentage-of-the-countrys-total-pre-tax-income-than-you-have-at-any-time-since-the-late-1920s-your-share-of-the-national-income-in-fact-is-almost-2x-the-long-term-average.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

None of which are examples of Republican class warfare. Nice straw man though...

[boutons_deux]

All of which are evidence of VRWC policies going back 30+ years.

The housing boom/crisis, the stagnation of real household income, the MBS/CDO shit, the TBTF financial corps were all avoidable, and were a direct result of VRWC policies.

[greyforest]

None of which are examples of Republican class warfare. Nice straw man though...

Aren't you a fan of Trickle Down theory?

Don't you find it interesting that ~30 years of Trickle Down Economics has literally caused wealth to trickle *up*, away from the middle class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/US-tax-rates.png

Taxed enough already? Taxes are lower for the wealthy than they have ever been since the great depression.

Then again, who can blame people for not wanting to pay taxes when taxes aren't spent back on the populous?

USA is a country by the rich, for the rich. If you are unaware of any class warfare you are hopeless.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

None of which are examples of Republican class warfare. Nice straw man though...

If you cannot understand how GOP support of corporations as individuals, dergegulation of the banking and energy industries, rhetoric about food stamps, etc is clearly them advocating the upper class then you are a fucking idiot.

Its not hard to figure out even if it is difficult for you to look past your GOP via Fox News buzz phrases and group think.

[greyforest]

There's no class warfare guys. Nothing is wrong with the economy, everything is just great.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/

[101A]

Aren't you a fan of Trickle Down theory?

Don't you find it interesting that ~30 years of Trickle Down Economics has literally caused wealth to trickle *up*, away from the middle class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/US-tax-rates.png

Taxed enough already? Taxes are lower for the wealthy than they have ever been since the great depression.

Then again, who can blame people for not wanting to pay taxes when taxes aren't spent back on the populous?

USA is a country by the rich, for the rich. If you are unaware of any class warfare you are hopeless.

Taxes are lower for the wealthy as a percentage of their own income, yes, but not as a percentage of all taxes paid.

Also, the discussion is about income, not after tax income? It appears to me that lower taxes do, in fact, encourage the wealthy to earn more money; the data seems to support that. As they earn more money, they pay a lower percentage of more income, right?* Might very well mean more net receipts for the govt. Also, as one person makes more money, and another makes the same, how is that the fault of tax policy? How does tax policy affect it? If you raise the taxes on the wealthy, and they continue to increase earnings; but pay more taxes - making the divide greater still, are you happy? You have more taxes, but the "disparity" is the same; at least on paper (where it is now, after all).

BTW: taxes (at least their returns) do illustrate a trend about those in the presidential field: Republicans are more generous than Democrats (at least with their OWN money) Biden = Greedy; before he was running for President, Obama wasn't far behind.


* (Caveat = Capital Gains; numerous posts for me regarding that - income ought to equal income)

[101A]

BTW: I feel the real crisis is NOT in the tax code; it is in the unlimited supply of very low income, easy to access, reasonably skilled workers that are usurping middle-class American jobs. THAT is the root of the income disparity, IMO. I don't know the solution, and neither the President, nor the contenders are addressing it.

[mercos]

Nice info being posted via charts and graphs. The truth is that BOTH parties have been practicing class warfare for going on 30 years now. Make no mistake that both sides have generally sided with the rich. I'm a Democrat, and Bill Clinton was one of my favorite presidents, but the man did a lot to help the rich. Between free trade agreements and lowering the capital gains tax he did a lot to redistribute wealth to the rich.

Taxes are a large part of class warfare, but free trade is either just as big or even bigger. Manufacturing jobs have been opened up to cheaper foreign competition, while highly skilled jobs like doctors and lawyers have not. Make no mistake we could share our medical and legal standards with foreign universities and bring over people who would work for less in both fields. The same could be said for other "highly skilled" fields.

Protecting the jobs of the rich while giving away the jobs of the middle class is class warfare. Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this. We could have kept our manufacturing sector strong. It would have meant slightly higher priced goods, but we would have better paying jobs to pay for such goods. The real winners in the outsourcing of manufacturing has been stockholders and CEOs who have seen corporate profits sky rocket.

[mercos]

*Whoops, double post.

[greyforest]

Taxes are lower for the wealthy as a percentage of their own income, yes, but not as a percentage of all taxes paid.

That's because the wealthy are the only people who have money in the first place.

http://media.theunderstatement.com/005_B_us_wealth_distribution.png

Even Warren Buffett comments how he pays a lower percentage of taxes than his peon secretary.

So everyone says "Why not pay the same tax rate, Buffett? Cut the check to the government if you are so inclined."

Who can blame anyone for not wanting to pay taxes. As I've said before, taxes are supposed to be spent on infrastructure for the citizens, and for whatever reason no one seems to notice that the REAL problem is that our tax money is abusively squandered and stolen by the politicians in charge of them.


Also, the discussion is about income, not after tax income? It appears to me that lower taxes do, in fact, encourage the wealthy to earn more money; the data seems to support that. As they earn more money, they pay a lower percentage of more income, right?* Might very well mean more net receipts for the govt.

Very unlikely. The more wealthy a person is the less likely they will pay taxes due to offshore bank accounts/capital gains/stock options/etc etc. Everything is set up to benefit the wealthy and help them evade having to pay taxes, which does help bring ultra-ultra-rich people to our country (top 1%) for whom the country is designed to benefit.



Also, as one person makes more money, and another makes the same, how is that the fault of tax policy? How does tax policy affect it? If you raise the taxes on the wealthy, and they continue to increase earnings; but pay more taxes - making the divide greater still, are you happy? You have more taxes, but the "disparity" is the same; at least on paper (where it is now, after all).

Read up a bit about the GINI Coefficient, which measures wealth disparity. USA rivals banana republics and third world countries.

The benefits of having a high GINI Coefficient and large middle class are numerous; decrease in crime, decreased birth rates, higher education, higher quality of life, etc etc etc. Tax rates are obviously not the only ingredient to this, but they are a main one.

[greyforest]

It's really pretty hilarious if you think about it...lets say hypothetically there's a completely flat tax rate.

http://media.theunderstatement.com/005_B_us_wealth_distribution.png

The 1% would STILL troll all of the dumbasses by crying "WE PAY 43% OF ALL THE TAXES! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS"

[101A]

That's because the wealthy are the only people who have money in the first place.

Even Warren Buffett comments how he pays a lower percentage of taxes than his peon secretary.

So everyone says "Why not pay the same tax rate, Buffett? Cut the check to the government if you are so inclined."

.

As I mentioned in my post; the capital gains tax rate bothers me a great deal. That low rate is attracting many of our best and brightest to investment careers - make money with money = 15%; earn money = 35%; easy math that. Income should equal income. All I see is Obama wanting to raise the top INCOME tax rate; should be talking about capital gains.

[greyforest]

Obama is in bed with all of the finance industry so don't expect that.

BTW,

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4e94601069bedd653a000038-590/and-these-profits-are-getting-back-toward-a-record-as-a-percentage-of-all-corporate-profits.jpg

Money changers.

[RandomGuy]

It's really pretty hilarious if you think about it...lets say hypothetically there's a completely flat tax rate.

http://media.theunderstatement.com/005_B_us_wealth_distribution.png

The 1% would STILL troll all of the dumbasses by crying "WE PAY 43% OF ALL THE TAXES! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS"

Bingo.

I have always said that if an economic system benefits you, you owe society a moral obligation to pay into it.

Our goverment facilitates the creation of this wealth in a myriad of ways, and the people making the most money, who have benefitted the most, should pay more.

We have monkeyed with the capital gains rate enough to know that taxing that particular economic gain has no real correlation to economic growth, despite the hystrionics that conservatives pitch at it when you dare to equate labor income with capital income.

Anybody who claims that raising the capital gains tax will have any real effect on economic growth is just being a useful idiot, IMO.


If you don't like that charactorization, provide me with some solid data to support your thesis, or GTFO. I have seen the data, and can quite readily show the lack of correlation to debunk this myth.

This old saw is, to me, another way that class warfare is waged by the rich on everybody else. The wealthy find some useful idiot to parrot this on Fox "news" and then it gets accepted as right-wing gospel, not to be questioned under pain of being labeled "moderate". The horrors!

[boutons_deux]

The Party People of Wall Street

but privately, a hedge manager said, “Most… view [it] as ragtag group looking for sex, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll.”

So sayeth the winners in our winner-take all economy. The very guys who were celebrating at the St. Regis because they were too big to fail. Even when they fell flat on their faces, the government was there to dust them off, bail them out and send them back to fight the class war with nary a harsh word or punishment. Talk about a nanny welfare state.

None of this was by accident. The last three decades have witnessed a carefully calculated heist worthy of Robert Redford and Paul Newman in “The Sting” — but on a massive scale. It was an inside job, politically engineered by Wall Street and Washington working hand-in-hand, sticky fingers with sticky fingers, to turn the legend of Robin Hood on its head – giving to the rich and taking from everybody else. Don’t take our word for it – it’s all on the record.

The biggest of the big boys was Citigroup, at one time the world’s largest financial institution. When the meltdown hit in 2008, the bank cut more than 50,000 jobs and you and other taxpayers shelled out more than $45 billion to save it. And how are Citigroup executives doing? Nicely, thank you. Last year, its CEO, Vikram Pandit, took home $1.75 million in base salary, and was awarded $3.7 million in deferred stock.

According to the Times, “Citigroup is expected to disclose the rest of his pay, cash, be it upfront or deferred, in March. In addition, while not necessarily for work performed in 2011, Mr. Pandit last year was awarded a $16.7 million retention bonus, plus stock options that could add $6.5 million to the package’s overall value.” Makes you want to cry out, “Retain me! Retain me!”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/30-8

[Nbadan]

I have always said that if an economic system benefits you, you owe society a moral obligation to pay into it

Yeah, things can get really messy, really fast when you politically start equating 'moral obligation' with 'income distribution', for instance, many Christian organization, even one huge one here in San Antonio and many on TV, equates social and economic success with 'doing the work of the lord' and wealth as 'the benefits of doing the lords work here on earth'.....in other words, those who can't pay their own way, aren't doing their part, in the eyes of the lord and aren't receiving their due 'penance' ....any form of govt help, welfare, unemployment compensation, health insurance, food stamps, all of it needs to be abolished....that is the goal.

[Nbadan]

http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Bernieclass-full.jpg

[angrydude]

And yet those 500 people could give 100% of their income to the government but if the level of spending didn't fall the economy would still be in the shitter.

Tax debates are red herrings and those same rich people know it. Who do you think is growing the government?

[Ashy Larry]

There's no class warfare guys. Nothing is wrong with the economy, everything is just great.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/


a couple of really good stories on that site ..... just awful. Washington DC has really fucked up this country.:depressed

[mercos]

And yet those 500 people could give 100% of their income to the government but if the level of spending didn't fall the economy would still be in the shitter.

Tax debates are red herrings and those same rich people know it. Who do you think is growing the government?


You are equating the national debt with the economy, and that is inaccurate. As of now the debt has not had a serious negative effect on the economy. If it is not handled in the future it will become a problem. It would be foolish to cut spending in a time of weak economic recovery. Once the economy is moving along nicely the government will have to cut spending. Tax increases, at least returning to the levels of the 1990s, are also needed to help balance the books. Measures such as a financial transactions tax would not be a bad idea to help pay down the long term debt of the country.

[boutons_deux]

exactly, the national debt was not the cause the Banksters' Great Depression.

The financial sector caused it.

In fact, increasing the national debt by about $2T is the best way to shorten the long-lingering Banksters' Great Depression.

[DarrinS]

Bingo.

I have always said that if an economic system benefits you, you owe society a moral obligation to pay into it.




They do pay into it -- in vast amounts.




Our goverment facilitates the creation of this wealth in a myriad of ways, ...


:lmao

[DarrinS]

And Bernie Sanders?


mmmmkay

[Spurminator]

Yeah Bernie Sanders is a complete loon, I mean, he's not even a member of one of the two major parties! And he's always ruffling feathers and stuff. If only he played by the rules like the rest of Congress, he might get something done.

[DarrinS]

Yeah Bernie Sanders is a complete loon.

yep

[EVAY]

Tax debates are not red herrings in discussions of inequality or
debt reduction.

[RandomGuy]

They do pay into it -- in vast amounts.



:lmao

Meh. I am neither surprised by your lack of effort at a response, nor its tone.

Saddened a bit, but not surprised.

Wake me up when you make an effort. :sleep