The debate over the “fiscal cliff” is an important tactical one and could have widespread political ramifications. There are complicated issues to consider. Should the Republicans give in to Mr. Obama’s demand that we raise the top tax rates? If so, what should they demand in return? If they don’t get it, is it more prudent to retreat in order to fight another day on more advantageous ground for the GOP? Or should Republicans be willing to go cliff diving with the president, confident that in the end Obama will own any future recession?
Whatever the answer to these tactical questions, the fiscal cliff raises a broader question for conservatism: What do you do when you’ve lost an argument, at least for now? In the post-election ABC News/Washington Post poll, for example, 60 percent of respondents said they support raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 a year. That’s not surprising, since to the degree that there was a centerpiece to the president’s economic argument during the 2012 election, it was to do just that. Mr. Obama was not only re-elected on that platform; he won by a comfortable margin. In the Senate, Democrats gained two seats while in the House they gained eight seats.
So here’s something to consider. Assume for the sake of the argument that this debate has been engaged and adjudicated by the public–and the public prefers the liberal solution (raising taxes on the “rich” in the name of “fairness”). Does the conservative movement, in order to maintain its strength and appeal, make peace with the public’s view? Or attempt to change it? And if so, how?
These questions are too large to tackle in a single post. I simply want to highlight a temptation all of us in politics face, which is to assume that because we hold a certain view, a majority of the public does, too. Those who hold this mindset usually fall back on an explanation that goes something like this: Republican politicians simply didn’t make sufficiently forceful and articulate arguments. If they had, the public would flock to our side since, after all, the arguments are all on our side.
The people who take comfort in this explanation usually reside in the “we have a communications problem” school. They lament the fact that we don’t have another Ronald Reagan to articulate conservatism and if we did, all would be right with the world once more.
I’m partially sympathetic to this view, since it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of quality candidates in advancing an intellectual cause. At the same time, it’s unwise to pin one’s hopes on producing, election after election, a candidate who possesses a once-in-a-lifetime set of skills. And Reagan himself, by 1980, had made peace with major elements of the New Deal (something he had not done in 1964).
As for the here and now: I’m actually conflicted as to what strategy Republicans ought to adopt in their battle with the president over the fiscal cliff, since I believe there are real downsides to capitulating on raising taxes on the top income earners. But however this issue resolves itself, conservatives should be careful not to assume that the problems we face are merely (or mostly) rhetorical.
It may be that a majority of the public, having heard both sides of the argument, believes that upper-income people are under-taxed. If that’s the case, it would be a significant error for conservatives to assume we simply need to make the same arguments, only louder, with more passion, and with more charts and graphs. It may be that we have to reframe the issue. Or it may be that we have to accept that waging the fight on this ground is injurious to the larger conservative cause. This is a discussion conservatives need to have in a calm, empirical way, resisting the impulse (on all sides) to either purge or impugn motivations — and to bear in mind that if conservatives give in to Obama’s demands, it may be a mistake but it wouldn’t be a violation of a high principle. Deciding on whether the top tax rate should be 35 percent or 39.6 percent, or somewhere in between, is a prudential, not quasi-theological, argument.
A final, related point: Conservatives have to be alert to shifting circumstances. Today we face challenges – including wage stagnation, lack of social mobility, globalization, income inequality, fracturing families, and an entitlement crisis — that are in some respects quite different, or at least more acute, than the ones we faced in 1980, when the threats we faced included soaring interest rates, high inflation, and a top marginal rate of 70 percent. This doesn’t mean that the arguments about tax rates and the size of government are passé. But it does mean conservatism has to take into account a realistic assessment of the sentiments of the public – not in order to bow before them, but to be better able to shape them.
This is not, as some might suggest, an argument to abandon conservatism. It’s rather an argument to revivify it.
Start with remembering why the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were meant to expire if Greenspan's forecast of surpluses 'as far as the eye can see' failed to come true. n nThe real tragedy of the 2012 election was the failure of the entire GOP to hammer home that growing the taxpayer base back to where it was is far more important than marginal tax rates. n nSo, why not insist on regulatory restraint, especially when it comes to fracking? n nMight want to nail Schumer if he is still protecting that Buffet/Bain loophole on income as carried interest tax rates.
The “fiscal cliff”, the idea that hitting it would be a bad thing, is a conservative manufacture. This part of the debate the conservatives have won. r nr nConservatives have already got what they demanded in return for the return to 40% tax rates: the ten years of lower tax rates. Returning to 40% in 2013 was part of the deal. r nr nThe conservative position is to be disagreeable to increases in taxation, resistant to increases in taxation, but not rigidly opposed. To be rigidly opposed to increases in taxation while taxes are at their lowest point since before the Second World War, and while the deficit is at its highest, is to be a fanatic as equally unsuitable for public office as the communists who insist we do away with money.r nr nThe 60% support for higher taxes shows that the anti-tax fanatics are winning the argument. That number used to be a lot higher. r nr nConservatives should demand the elimination of programs that are state and personal responsibilities, increased funding of IG offices to root out corruption and wasteful spending at all levels of the government, a simpler tax code with fewer exemptions, and a time table for the 40% tax rate to slowly drop down to 33.3% by 1% per year starting from 2014.
The issue is the SPENDING, spending, spending — the out-of-control spending. If the Republicans cannot make that point, what can they do?
I think the problem is rhetoric — but it may be that Republicans can't win for the time being. The 60% want fairness, they want Thurston Howell III to pay more in taxes. That is who they imagine is being asked to pay more. Obama has got the Republicans depicted as fighting to keep taxes supposedly lower for old Thurston than they are for every single person making minimum wages on up who see a big chunk of their paycheck gone to probably-all-social-security. So, it's all about FAIRNESS, the perception that the rich are stealing from the poor. The only way I see to turn that tide is to call Obama a liar (and get people to stop imagining Thurston Howell and start seeing the people who own the local corner store who they don't see as rich), and not just call him a liar, but really criticize his plans, not how well-meaning and all that garbage they say about him instead, but demand to know why he's proposing such devastating legislation! Republicans don't fight like Obama and Clinton before him — and this is what we get after 20 years of being trashed (and note how Obama called Romney a liar, particularly about Bain … and then after the election said he never had anything bad to say about Romney and Bain). n nSo, point of the article, Republicans in Congress need to do what's right and maybe TRY a little to say why what they believe is right is right.
If the GOP is going to take the blame because Obama, the left and their media sycophants already have deemed it so, we might as well make the case in as stark terms as possible. I agree with nvkma above: the fundamental disagreement with the Dems/left is the size and scope of the Federal government. Obama has no intention of slowing the growth of government one bit, let alone shrinking it by one penny (every defense cut is ticketed to be spent somewhere else). n nI suggest, humbly, that the Republicans in the House start by passing their most conservative plan, all at once, to restore order to the tax code, start to reform the entitlements with the stuff that everyone knows is needed (such as raising the eligibility age), and get the spending down to 2008 levels as a share of GDP. Let Obama and the Dems in the Senate ignore it, but at least the GOP can say to their constituents, "Hey, we did our job." n nMostly, the GOP leadership needs to grow a spine.
In a recent interview a CEO argued that tax rates are not the end-all in the making of business decisions. A more important factor keeping businesses in limbo is the uncertainty that currently exists. The benefit of temporarily reducing tax rates is negated by the uncertainty as to what will happen when the reduction expires. Business do not plan to expand or invest when future conditions are questionable. n nGiven that, perhaps it would be best to let the temporary cuts expire for everyone. Middle class taxpayers are much more likely to support future tax reform efforts when their tax bill is more significant. Perhaps the term "fiscal cliff" is an exaggeration. If lowering tax rates temprarily has a limited benefit because of the uncertainty it introduces to the future, allowing those lower rates to expire may not have as much negative effect on the economy as some are predicting. If the economy does go south, gas prices will probably soon follow. Paying more to the Government could mean paying less to the Arabs. One of the few trade-offs where the Government would be the preference.
The uncertainty argument is very very weak. Here's some certainty: All income over $250,000 per year for individuals, and over $2.5 million for businesss, belongs to the US Treasury. No deductions, no tax credits no loopholes, no nothing. We can make the tax systems extremely certain–and it would kill the economy for good. No, pfkga89, uncertainty is not the problem. Of that you may be certain.
Thanking you for using the correct phrase, "…raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 a year…." rather than "taxing the wealthy", which only serves to divide us into classes. Taxes are about numbers, not people.
Somebody keep sharp knives away from Peter Wehner, for pity's sake! And prescribe some anti-depressives. All poor Peter can do, like Victor Hansen also did a few days ago, is lament and recite the dismal facts, which we all know. Heaven's to Betsy, 2.8% more people who voted, several million people out of the US population of 330 million, favored socialism over free enterprise. n nHave we so little faith in our convictions that this is enough to cry and weep and lament that we are doomed, and our ideas are doomed? Peter Wehner may wonder if continuing the argument, and trying to convince people of the soundness of our principles, is a waste of time. But he is so wrong, as are the craven US Senators, the losers, who are ready to capitulate. n nAnyone who thinks that the election somehow demonstrated that conservative ideas on economics and finance and taxes and deficit are wrong, is not a conservative, but a weathervane. n nMoreover, I refer Mr. Wehner to Don Corleone, Marlon Brando, and Rob Bartlett, all of whom say: "ACT LIKE A MAN!!!"
The GOP will do muddle through a truly crappy situation (partly of their own making, but certainly not entirely), but conservatives do not have to change their principles one bit and they shouldn't. Has anything happened, Peter, that makes conservative principles even a little less valid than before?
"The Republican Party can't sell freedom and liberty, they suck at it. Who sucks at selling freedom and liberty?" – Andrew Breitbart
I agree that we have lost the argument. I suggest we see Obama's proposed tax increase on the wealthy and raise him. I would propose ever higher rates as incomes grow, reaching something like 60 or 70 percent as incomes reach 10, 50, 100 million dollars. n nDon't tell me this isn't "fair"; and let me tell you it would hurt many celebs who supposedly support the Left's agenda of "social justice". Perhaps between my plan and those of Jerry Brown and co. in California we can get Hollywood stars so poor they'll qualify for Section 8 housing and food stamps. That would really be "fair" and "just".
The argument is simple: nEither you are for or against the American experiment. nOne side wants to abandon it and hop the boat back to Europe. nThe other side seeks to preserve this land of unprecedented freedom. nOn which side are you? nOn which side were your parents?
I absolutely agree that the current context is one of "wage stagnation, lack of social mobility, globalization, income inequality, fracturing families, and an entitlement crisis." In this context, all the Republican talk of no new taxes, entrepreneurial incentives, and cutting government spending was irrelevant froth that merely added to the electorate's anxieties. Especially the anxieties of the working class, which Romney lost especially at the point when his irrelevant, insulting and utterly incorrect "47%" excuse-making occurred. Neither he nor the Republicans in general have yet abandoned that misconception however. Hence the 100% of us who are dependent on government in one way or another have in fact ALL been dismissed by this contemptuous notion. Instead, conservatism needs to find a way to talk about powerful and effective government, not small government. The big-small government framework is idiotic (no one is going to go back to "small" government) and will continue to cede the ground over and over to Democrats if it is adhered to. Republicans need to go back to the Republicanism that used the government to develop the railroads in the late 1800s, the Panama Canal in the early 1900s, or the Interstate Highway system in the 1950s – all instances of powerful and effective, not small, government. The energy boom of the next twenty years offers fertile ground. The working class understands such supports as offering new hope for the future. Protecting incomes for the wealthy, many of who are parasitical not entrepreneurial in any case, is a loosing game. Give it up.
Republicans/conservatives have become inept as the three stooges. The party is influenced by a bunch of amateurs and, as the liberals have been saying for years now, a group of big mouth talk show hosts. Being spokesmen for what the public perceives to be the rich is a disaster and just stupid. For years the Republicans have been trying to shed the country club image, but now they are right back to square one. In a way, principle over the tax increases for the "rich" is irrelevant. What good will it do us if we slip into permanent minority status? To be cowered by the nondescript Grover Nordquist, disingenuos Limbaugh, the mean and nasty Mark Levin and motor mouth Hannity is a guarantee for defeat.
If you can't beat them, join them. n nAdvocate higher taxes on the rich by taxing all income a the same rate. This was the principle of Reagan's 1986 tax law. n nThe macro-economic arguments in favor of tax preferences for investment income pale before the political price of "tax cuts for the rich." n nReagan understood this but current conservatives do not, and it is contributing to our political misfortune.
We should have taken the "tax the rich" argument off the table two years ago, by saying OK, but pointing out that this will surely not come close to solving our fiscal problems. By now, either we are in the White House, or we are, at least, able to have some believeability on the issue. The Democrats are right. Get over it. The issue will be forgotten within two news cycles. Until entitlement spending is tackled there is no solution, and the sooner that is made clear the better position we will be in come 2014 and 2016.
by saying "OK" you don't take the argument off the table. You instead turn it into an argument to be used by Republicans against Republicans and by the MSM against Republicans. Specifically, "Read my lips. No new taxes".
By saying “OK” we would not have “taken the tax the rich argument off the table”. Instead, we would have converted the argument into a maul to be used by some Republicans against other Republicans and by the MSM against Republicans in general. Never forget: “Read my lips, no new taxes”.
Here is the ultimate solution: expire the Republican Party. GOP, RIP. Long live the Tea Party.
I suppose there's a very easy answer here: admit you lost the argument, and then step back and let Obama tax those people over $250,000, then see if it leads to capital flight, tax evasion, business closure, or whether it leads to improvement in the economy, at least as far as entitlements go. n nThen you watch and wait and document for four years, and then you make the "I told you so" case. It won't be you experimenting on the American people, after all, so it isn't an inhumane experiment — it will be one chosen by the majority of people in polls, and chosen as the policy of their leader who won by a "comfortable" majority. So there you have your answer — watch and wait. n nTo be sure, some of the things you mention like globalization complexify the picture. How will you know that the heavier tax on those wealthier folks didn't work, if globalization undermines the American worker other ways by shipping jobs overseas? It's a tough call. But, by and large, if the 47% nudges up to 51%, then you'll have your case: that it's an impossible proposition to keep supporting forever.
This issue is part of a larger issue: What do Americans think about the wealthy generally? n nStandard GOP rhetoric is to lump all wealthy people into the umbrella term "job creators, " as if Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Bernie Madoff and the CEOs of Lehman Brothers and Enron are all equally admirable and equally worthy. n nBut most Americans draw some fine distinctions among these. n nMost Americans admire the inventor, the entrepreneur, the industrialist, who created new products, new factories, new industries–and got rich that way. n nMost Americans do not admire Wall Street financiers and bankers. And especially not after the financial collapse in 2008, when many of these firms were judged "too big to fail"–and even Republicans were forced to authorize taxpayer-financed bailouts of these firms to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. n nThe GOP is losing the argument because of their actions in Congress. They talk constantly about "job creators," but they constantly stand up for the interests of the financial industry. Meanwhile, the *real* job creators of Silicon Valley–who created Apple Computer, Adobe, Oracle, etc.–strongly backed Obama. n n n
Before I read the article; Conservatives have not lost the argument…Republicans have.
It's all very well to talk about "revivifying conservatism," but that's not going to solve anything. The trouble with the GOP—which is what this argument is really about, since "conservatism" is an idea, not a political strategy or method, much less a viable political institution—is that the men (overwhelmingly) and women who run the Republican Party are, to be kind, dinosaurs, stiffs, zombies, and frankly as uninspiring and un-with-it a group of operators as exist on the planet! And until that changes, it doesn't matter what the GOP preaches or represents, the voting majority will not go for it! n nProof? What kind of party serves up a boring, morally questionable candidate like Mitt "47%" Romney to engage in mortal combat with an operator as slick and as wily as Barack Obama? What kind of party chooses John McCain to run against the same slick operator in 2008? What kind of party gives us a "compassionate conservative" president, George W. Bush, who in two terms manages to bankrupt the nation, while fighting two needless wars that cost many thousands of American lives, with tens of thousands horribly wounded and maimed, and citizens seriously at odds with one another along class, gender, generation and ideological battle lines? What kind of party is it that thinks someone with George W. Bush's level of experience would make a great leader of the United States? n nAnd, what do those of us who call ourselves Republicans intend to do about it, simply "try again?" As in, if you don't succeed…..? Whatta strategy! n nThe GOP, no matter what pundits and commentators would like us to believe, is in free-fall mode. It is damaged goods, having disgraced itself over the years for making common cause with southern segregationists, the Moral Majority, the fanatical anti-abortion fringe, gay-bashers, assorted white-supremacy types, machine-gun fanatics, survivalists, and those who "believe" (though they don't, not for a minute) that "vouchers" and "competition" will magically fix our nation's public school systems. Meanwhile, millions of inner-city minority kids are barely able to read and write, which means their futures will be grim at best. What kind of people stand by while children are doomed to futures-in-hell? n nIf that weren't bad enough, the GOP equates fixing the economy with bashing unions, rather than the excesses unions have committed. Sneering at working men and women? What kind of a party does that? Sometimes, I—a staunch fiscal conservative—listen to the kinds of things said about unionized workers, and I wonder whether anyone remembers the good old days when "bosses" could treat their workers any way they pleased, including the kids toiling 18 hours/day in knitting mills! What ever happened to "ain't I got the right to the Tree of Life?" And what kind of party thinks it's okay that so many Americans have hundreds of millions in the bank and yet shouldn't pay high taxes on the overage, say, on income above $10 million a year? And that "death tax" nonsense? What, is this Europe or China, where "certain families" are our royalty, and this entitles them to tie up vast amounts of capital so that their children can live like princes and princesses? n nAnd how about the much-maligned "environment?" What is it about trees and fish Republicans don't much care for? Or the wilderness that defines the American character? Well, they say, it's hunters that know best what to do with the forests! Really? What, like gang-bangers and dope-dealers know best how to run our inner-cities, and teachers know how to run our schools? Really? n nThe inauthenticity and hypocrisy that now defines the GOP is a serious problem, because Americans are served best when two strong, interesting sets of ideas do combat in the public arena, in open debate. That way we get to revisit who we are, what we're about, what we want, and question all of it. No longer. The Democrats lie through their teeth, and think they're being cute—just watch how they laugh as their mouths spew out what is clearly untrue! But the Republicans do no better—they preach moral platitudes, about "the marketplace," "low taxes" and "business" as if these were some kind of sacred cows, rather than tools of governance and transaction. n nAnd so this last election the people, wisely, voted for the devil they knew—and who at least was entertaining, if not entirely believable or real—and took a pass on the deeply flawed and uncomfortably strange Mitt Romney. Who would willingly vote for a man that, after losing an election, comes out with "Obama won because he gave people things!"? And then there was that bit about "having friends who own NASCAR teams." Just the man for the White House—a jerk. n nWhat kind of party runs a jerk against Barack Obama? And what kind of people–I received this the other day via email—state that Romney is "comparable to George Washington?" What kind of party has members like that? Who are these people? Who am I, since I voted for Mitt too?
I understand your frustration with the GOP. There are third parties out there right now but, whatever your personal politics, which of them is a viable alternative? I like a lot of the Libertarian Party positions but I'm not going to throw my vote away unless they have a real chance at winning. "Lesser of evils" is the only practical voting philosophy. n nI do see one possible glimmer of hope on down the road. I would guess that if the GOP screws up again ala Bush, who expanded rather than contracted government, the budget and the deficit, the Republican Party may no longer be a viable force…as extinct as the Whigs who couldn’t get their arms around another great American crisis of their day. n n
cont'd. nThe problem is that the progressive ethos permeates the elites of both parties. This pretty much works for Democrats because their base is largely clientele of the nanny state, the progressive Utopia. The Republican elite lately has a much tougher row to hoe with their base which is increasingly unwilling to follow their “betters”…hence you get a populist movement like the TEA Party. The Republican ideology is nominally focused on preventing the government from doing things to the individual rather than what the government can/should do for you. The best and brightest with this philosophy will not naturally gravitate towards politics or positions in government. The career Republican politicians are a barren and self-serving wasteland, all tactics and small ball, no vision. n
From my perspective, the progressive agenda is wrong and even dangerous but it does attract a better caliber of people…simply because they can aspire to use the government as a tool for doing “good.” The road to Hell on Earth is forever paved with their good intentions and they will bore you to death sanctimoniously lecturing you about them. n nWhile, in the public square, currently, the progressives, those who would enslave you to create a utopia on earth have the ascendency, it will be interesting to see whether those who would enslave you to save your soul will be able to coalition for very long with those who say “save yourself and stay the hell out of my business.” In short, the Social Conservatives and the TEA Party are a difficult but plausible coalition in opposition (where all they need agree on is “no”) but almost certainly not able to provide a coherent government. Of course, when the progressive program is as authoritarian and vile as it currently is, just saying “no” may be quite satisfactory for the moment.
Balderdash…that is the word isn't it for some really dumb ideas as yours are, in my opinion. And, what kind of "better caliber" people are those who work for the government for the high wages, great benefits even when they know that they are climbing on the backs of the workers? I don't know your bent, but, you have no clue about what the heck social conservatives or the tea party is about…but the vast majority of progs don't…not even the RINO's… These "better" caliber take advantage, a lot of them don't pay their income taxes (billions are owed the IRS)…they don't truly work 40 hours…get off every holiday plus and they get off every chance they can to protest at our expense anything the progs ask them to. And, 'no' is truly not in the vocabulary of progressives whether right or left. President Reagan discovered that the welsh on their promises.
You really shouldn't comment on postings that you clearly did not understand: you first grossly misrepresent what I said and then you complain about the mistaken positions you attribute to me.
Which "dumb" ideas are your referring to? You don't know what tea party people are about…nor "social" conservatives (an oxymoron, in my opinion)…The millions of Tea Party members are not one big coalition like the prog/Marxists….they are individuals that agree on one point: taxed enough already!!!
What meds are you on?
Mitt Romney is not a jerk…he would not have been my choice, as a tea party and conservative….he, unfortunately for people like you, me and the majority of good, decent Americans…he is a decent, good, honest man caught in a web of filth from which good manners were ineffective. What we needed was a very good looking Nixon….and blackparrot…what are you? What have you done to help change the trajectory of this country? It is easy to blast others with our assertions, our opinions, but, who the heck are you? Have you read or talked to Obama's supporters or their mailers? I have….you can say the same thing about O. So, what's your point? What's your own personal game plan?
Romney was not a "jerk" but he certainly was a stiff and he (with a helping hand from the Obama negative advertising) alienated the soft middle of the electorate that uses the same standards and circumspection that people use in selecting the next American Idol. He would have made an admirable cabinet Secretary or, in the UK, a Prime Minister. But we have, in our Presidency, the need for someone who can bridge the two roles of King and Prime Minister. Obama, whatever else we might say about his deficiencies as an executive, is a personality.
And your point?
I think the true conservatives should vote no; McCain and Lindsay boy can vote yes with Boehner; and lets see what happens. If mitt had recieved as many votes as McCain he would have won, the conservatives stayed home (not all). So if the GOP does not show some spine – like get some serious spending cuts NOW!- the Tea Party will primary them in 2014 and we will see what happens. I am ready to bring on another recession-default on our credit-and start over after the crash if Obama is going to turn us socialist. I mean who is kidding who? Our country is so far gone financially we need a do over. So lets remake the whole shootin match!!
Get strategic. Get positioned tactically so the end result down the road is completely owned by the President. The Republicans in the House can and should pass their own program — a we think this will work, this is the correct thing to do. Then give the President the tax increase on the "rich" and say, we don't think this will work, but you do, Have at it. With 18 months, this debate will be solely about Obama's policies and the failure to produce desired outcomes.. n nThe other effort has to be aimed media bias. People have to get consistently loud about this. And party leaders, armed with empirical analysis, need to go to the top of networks, newspapers and the like demanding fairness. And make noise about it.
Re media bias…there is only one way I can see to control or stop it….don't watch, see, hear…but that means all…the NFL….golf….cooking shows…talk shows…in simple terms: No television, radio, no newspapers or magazines bought….they tract every viewer, listener and if we stay away from the 95-98% media the advertisers will leave them in droves….as for the Internet, again do not click on any site that you know is progressive…..simple…but a difficult thing t accomplish.
You're missing the point. The majority will always vote for low taxes, generous benefits — for themselves. Obama is trying to exploit that by promising generous benefits and low taxes, paid for by the rich. Of course the majority supports that. Obama and everyone else who is paying attention understands that it's an empty promise: there aren't enough rich people with enough money to pay for generous benefits. So why is he doing it? Because it's an opportunity to destroy the Republican Party, which holds together an economically diverse coalition based on a platform of low taxes for EVERYONE. Lose that glue, and the rest of it falls apart fairly quickly.
Irrespective of resolving the US foreign debt, the 2% should pay a lot more tax. They will still remain abjectly rich. Many became rich dishonestly (i.e.: inside trading by congress-men and -women). This goes for both Rep and Dem. No one can solve the problem of humanity. We should aim for fewer losers.
Absolutely not watsa46….no one has the right, at least in America still, to take away others resources. Might as well implement Sharia Law in America as you take away our freedoms…decapitation doesn't seem so bad, after all its very quick and painless…all the nerve connections are severed.
I'm guessing many households making $250,000 +/- per year do not consider themselves TTW (The truly wealthy). Rather they are hardworking, decent, law abiding citiizens playing by the rules. nIt's a fair guess that some of them have unearned income which next year, as a result of Obamacare's 3.7% surtax, will be taxed at 38.7%; and their marginal earned income, as a result of Obamacare's .9% medicare surcharge, will be taxed at 35.9%. So – their marginal tax rate in 2013 wlll already be at the "fair" Clinton levels. Many of this households are striving to become TTW, and many are small businesses that want to expand with investment and new hires. The Truly Wealthy can take a little hit, but there are far fewer of them than the strivers at $250,000. There is a vast difference between the two – but not to BHO – he's going to lump them together as not "paying their fair share". Nice Mr. President – very nice.
35% Tax, across the board. The more you tax, the less people have to spend and the lower the revenues are. Besides, taxes don't do anything for the deficit. Cut spending, gradually if they must, to make Obama happy, (Of course nothing short of having his own way makes him happy). But then again, what do I know?
"Or should Republicans be willing to go cliff diving with the president, confident that in the end Obama will own any future recession?" n nThe majority of the American public is well aware that the "fiscal conservative" Republicans are eager to have the rest of us suffer through high unemployment, low home prices, low profits for small business and all the other ramifications of a recession so they can score political points against a Democrat President. They get to keep their salaries, their Rolls-Royce health plan, their exemption from the various regulations they saddle us with, so why should they worry? n nIt's this attitude that kept them out of the White House and out of control of the Senate. When they are willing to suffer along with the rest of us when their policies cause hardship then the Republican party will regain credibility.
If we have lost the argument, then every single one of us who can should find ways to get whatever entitlements are possible. Because in the end, no matter what Buffet or Soros says, the money will run out. All one need do today is look to the UK that has lost 50% of its wealthy or France that is facing a flood fleeing out to other places….and, America will not be a place they will consider coming to. Or, we could all learn Chinese. Same difference.
I am so happy that contraception has been saved. The Republicans never brought up the social arguments. Democrats used the "war on women" argument with great effect, though. I am surprised it worked so well. Don't women know that they will be just as affected as men, maybe even more, when the fiscal crisis, not the phony "fiscal cliff" crisis, actually hits? And it will.
It is not true that social issues were not brought up by Republicans, although Romney did emphasize economic issues, but when pressed, he declared himself as a strong advocate of pro-life policies. A lot of good it did him, as millions of social conservatives stayed home. Enough to throw the election? I don't know. Leftists such as Eric Hobsbawm came out strongly for the women's movement, and feminists were overwhelmingly on the social democratic side and particularly the anti-imperialist Left accordingly.
"When pressed". Precisely. Pressed by who and for what purpose? The answer, appropriately, is Obama's compliant propagana promoting press. I think that you have become a victim of the very same populistic propaganda that you have so ably warned about. No one in the compliant press ever "presses" Obama.
Romney was most certainly pressed by someone (probably in the press) to clarify his position on socially conservative issues. Whether that press person was a Democrat or a social conservative does not matter. Romney declared himself pro-life and it was widely publicized at a time when the Democratic Party was accusing Republicans of the war on women. I am not a populist, and resent your inference.