Why does nobody speak out for the most oppressed minority in America, especially you bleeding heart liberals? Where is your compassion?
Let us take pity on the poor rich, for mercy’s sake! Yes our persecuted minority of economic elites are unhappy with their “rich man's burden”. That would be taxes. Next to financial regulation and enduring a Democrat in the White House, taxes are the most terrible persecution for our pampered Plutocrats. Take the sad tale of Steve Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group. Perhaps persecution is too mild a term for this poor man’s plight. Americans put out of their jobs by his fellow economic royalists know little of the real pain Mr. Schwarzman suffers. When Obama suggested closing a tax loophole allowing him to pay only a 15 percent tax on his meager income, instead of the 35 percent the rest of us pay, he knew just what to compare his situation to. Schwarman declared it was like “when Hitler invaded Poland”. Ach, Gotterdammerung!
We hear the rage of the Tea Cult. We hear the rage of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Savage. But their rage and suffering must pale in comparison to the injuries endured by exponentially wealthier hedge fund managers and major Wall Street swindlers. Thank Mammon at least our Right Wing propaganda machine feels their pain.
But wait. What’s this little peep I thought I heard about some wealthy person who thinks the super rich can afford to pay higher taxes? Can this be real? Surely not in the US of Republistan?
Hold on to your seat. There was an article in the LA Times last month called I’m Rich; Tax Me More. It was written by Garrett Gruener, the founder of Ask.com, chief executive of Nanomix, the co-founder and director of the venture capital firm Alta Partners and a member of the advisory board at NDN, a center-left think tank in Washington. Ah, I was right. He is, of course, no Republican.
He said, “Congress should let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans and use the additional tax revenues that are generated to invest in infrastructure and research.”
How radical! He sounds like me. He also reveals the truth that no Republican wants you to know;
For nearly the last decade, I've paid income taxes at the lowest rates of my professional career. Before that, I paid at higher rates. And if you want the simple, honest truth, from my perspective as an entrepreneur, the fluctuation didn't affect what I did with my money. None of my investments has ever been motivated by the rate at which I would have to pay personal income tax.
And for some reason the corporate media never seem to tell us:
As history demonstrates, modest changes in the tax rate for wealthy taxpayers don't make much of a difference if the goal is to build new companies, drive technological development and stimulate new industries. Almost a decade ago, President George W. Bush and his Republican colleagues in Congress pushed through a massive reduction in marginal tax rates, a reduction that benefitted the wealthy far more than other taxpayers.
We were told the cuts would accelerate business growth and create jobs. Instead, we got nearly a decade of anemic job growth, stagnating wages, declining incomes and high inequality.
The supply-side, trickle-down economic policies of the last decade benefitted people like me, but the wealth didn't trickle down. So while we did quite well, people who live from paycheck to paycheck didn't.
What? Can it possibly be true that the sacred prophecy of Saint Reagan was wrong? And even more astonishing, can there be someone like FDR, a “traitor to his class”, who actually cares about the country that provided the environment that nurtured his prosperity? Amazingly, we hear from a rich man, through corporate media, telling us Republicans are wrong and shared prosperity is, in fact, desirable.
What American businesspeople know, and have known since Henry Ford insisted that his employees be able to afford to buy the cars they made, is that a thriving economy doesn't just need investors; it needs people who can buy the goods and services businesses create. For the overall economy to do well, everyday Americans have to do well.
Now that the Bush tax cuts are about to expire, Republicans are again arguing that taxes should remain low for the wealthy. The idea is that this will spur people like me to put more capital to work and start more ventures, which will create new jobs, power the economy and ultimately produce more tax revenues. It's a beguiling theory, but it's one that hasn't worked before and won't work now.
Thank you, Mr Gruener. You inspire more hope with your wisdom and honesty than we shall ever see from Washington DC.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
Even with the economic disaster brought on by the plutocrats the middle class is still largely lost in their delusional lifestyle living off the credit cards. I figure the rich will eventually wiggle back under their rocks and find new ways to screw the country and escape paying any real taxes.
Now that the Bush tax cuts are about to expire, Republicans are again arguing that taxes should remain low for the wealthy.
Given how the rich have done their best to send manufacturing jobs overseas to squeeze out every last cent in profit if the middle class doesn't wake up to this scam they deserve eveything they get.
I guess I don't understand who is supposed to buy any product or service, shop at any store, buy any home or car, or really contribute in any way to the economy if they have nothing. Once all of the wealth is in the hands of 2% of Americans, are they just going to wall themselves off in, say, Houston, while the country crumbles?
What's hilarious is that the teabaggers idolize the decade of the 1950s and want desperately to return to that time. Yet the wealthiest Americans paid 90% income tax then. 90%!? The rich - much richer now than they ever were - are whining about 39.6%.
Greed is the most destructive force in America today, without a doubt.
If this Garrett Gruener fella hates America so much, why don't he just take his commie ass over there to Yerp with the rest of them socialists :)
I'm glad a few wealthy people are able to see the larger picture (Warren Buffet is another one). I'm sure there are a lot more, but like you said, the corporate media doesn't want to give them much publicity.
Washington State might soon join the rest of the country and have a state income tax, if an initiative gets passed in November. It's only for the wealthiest 2% of the state's population. Even if it eventually applies to everybody (like its opponents are screaming), I'm still in favor of it. We need it. This initiative is being promoted by Bill Gates Sr. Bill Gates Jr. is in favor of it but isn't campaigning for it. The current Microsoft CEO and the CEO of Amazon.com are both contributing to defeat the measure; apparently they're Taxed Enough Already.
The rich don't pay anywhere near their fair share in taxes in this country, and the corporate media heavily censor coverage of the issue.
I always have to wonder about those flag wavers who want wars but don't have to pay for them. They're always displaying their patriotism, until Uncle sam asks them to pay for it. If I had a million dollars, I would gladly give half of it to the IRS, because I would still have the other half left.
Beach,
The problem is there is no alarm clock to wake up the middle class. We hear plenty corporate media voices telling us comforting fairy tales of the American Dream to keep us dozing away.
Dave,
The Tea Cult is incapable of comprehending the concept of cognitive dissonance. That makes them ripe for Orwellian indoctrination like War is peace, Ignorance is strength, and Freedom is slavery.
Tom,
I'd bet anything a higher percent of the middle class is more willing to pay higher taxes to get us out of austerity than the aristocracy would.
Libhom,
That leaves very few voices to tell the public that corporate media and their economic elitist owners are doing their best to preserve the status quo, especially with half the country drinking the "liberal media" koolade.
Lew,
Exactly, it is truly a false patriotism from those tax dodging spoiled rich brats. They are more like Al Capone than Thomas Jefferson, and he owned slaves.
Tax the rich.
They just move their assets to Costa Rica. Like Rush Limbaugh and 1000's of other rich people
NJ decided to tax the rich more....the rich moved over the border to NY and the tax receipts DROPPED for the year.
Why? Because they are rich and buying a million dollar condo is chump change for them. They can afford to live where they want.
Taxing only the rich in Washington state. Super. They will just move to Oregon and fly to work everyday. Or they will close their businesses or move them.
Because they can.
Bill gates and warren buffet are PRETENDING, feeling guilty for having billions. So they proclaim TAX ME.
However Most of their money is untouchable...already taxed, already in offshore banks. So they can make stupid statements about please tax us rich folk.
There are so many loopholes in our tax codes that these super rich dont pay taxes and trying to milk them ends up in less taxes.
Not more.
Anonymous, you've got it right.
I've got an acquaintance I run into now and then that can be counted as rich. He makes a few million a month.
He was complaining one day that he was in a high tax bracket, so I asked him how much he actually paid in taxes. His reply was, "Only a dumbass earning my income pays any taxes. I haven't paid taxes in three years. I just want them to change the tax code so I can quit paying my accountant."
I won't even bother, once again, refuting the "rich don't pay their fair share of taxes" nonsense. It falls on completely deaf ears even when shown in non-partisan black and white figures to the contrary.
That being said, why don't we do two things? First close all of the damned loopholes by scrapping our current tax code.
Make perhaps two or three levels of tax brackets and eliminate all deductions for everyone. Only those below the poverty level should be exempted from the federal tax burden.
Second, Americans need to insist that the government and both asinine main political parties governing it, stop spending money we do not have. Stop spending money on things that we do not need. Stop spending money on programs etc that are not implicitly authorized in the Constitution.
Then maybe we could have some respite from this tired old class war-fare crap and the country could once again begin to pay its damned bills.
Not all rich people are greedy, just the ones that are funding the Republicans. The rich did not want for luxury even when the top marginal rate was 92%.
I would submit that is the people that want "benefits" paid for with other peoples' money that are the greedy ones.
What gives any man a right to the property of another man?
Now I personally think we have an obligation to help our neighbor when such assistance is needed, but it is tantamount to theft when one's money is confiscated and redistributed to others without one's consent.
Excellent, just excellent.
Gruener had a forerunning "traitor to his class" in the remarkable Warren Buffett, one of the richest people on the planet. Three or four years back (I think it was), Buffett pointed out how he was paying less in taxes than his secretary, adding that's neither fair nor wise.
". . .a thriving economy doesn't just need investors; it needs people who can buy the goods and services businesses create. For the overall economy to do well, everyday Americans have to do well."
I love the way Molly Ivins capsulized that thought: "We all do better when we all do better."
I would just add to the thought the now-novel notion that this country desperately needs to get back to actually producing large volumes of goods and services, rather than farming so much out to wherever labor costs a fraction of what it does here. And yes, that's going to cost some very rich people like the Walton Clan some profits.
Sorry, but even knowing that, I don't feel their pain.
Beach Bum wrote: "Even with the economic disaster brought on by the plutocrats the middle class is still largely lost in their delusional lifestyle living off the credit cards."
Actually, not so much. A big reason the economy is still crawling and unemployment remains above 9 percent is that large numbers of nonwealthy consumers have spent the past year-plus paying down their credit cards and minimizing new purchases.
On top of that, a few million have learned a hard lesson about the danger of using equity in their home to finance purchases of more stuff on credit.
Anonymous,
There’s little we can do about that, too. Our only hope, slim to none as it may be, is to reverse corporate personhood and remove Big Money from our elections.
Wease,
Great example.
TomCat,
You mean the rich don’t really suffer more than the poor and the middle class? I suppose next you’ll tell me FOX isn’t fair and balanced.
TP,
Framing taxation as “fair share” injects an arguable definition of fair. The rich say, “Life’s not fair” as they offshore someone’s job, don’t they? Why should we even worry about what they think is fair? Zero taxes will be their idea of “fair” ultimately. Let’s just say what they paid under Reagan was fair and go from there.
Your “black and white” figures on their share of taxes must be seen in the context where the average earnings of CEO’s have gone from 50 times that of workers to 500. They damn well better pay more taxes. Combine that with the shrinking middle class and rising poverty, what do you get? There’s more percentage of income taxes from the rich because of their extreme increase of income. They still personally pay the lowest rates in memory. Bottom line.
You’re right about one thing. Something needs to change. Nobody wants out of control spending and most of us don’t want neo-feudal proportions of wealth concentration.
“Class warfare crap” will go away when shared prosperity returns. The rich don’t get their money in a vacuum. They get it through the labor of others. The workers share needs to be considered, too.
“I would submit that is the people that want "benefits" paid for with other peoples' money that are the greedy ones.” Does that include Medicare? Isn’t that how insurance compensation works? Perhaps you generalize a bit too much here.
“What gives any man a right to the property of another man?” Good question. Nothing gives a man that right. The Constitution, however, gives government the right to tax them, and the law gives them the right through legal action by lawsuit or the travesty of “eminent domain”.
Let me tell you how I feel about your statement, “It is tantamount to theft when one's money is confiscated and redistributed to others without one's consent.” When I think of my tax dollars going into the pockets of Blackwater assassins, thugs, and murderers, it infuriates me. But it is not theft. It is bad government and corporatism. Again taxation is not theft, no matter what Rush says. And even the rich benefit from government services, although they benefit even more from the system being corrupted and rigged in their favor.
SW,
Almost all the jobs the economic elites have left in this country are service jobs. It would require withdrawal from treaties and trade agreements to restore a manufacturing base here. I don’t see that happening before a revolution. We can, however, restore and increase construction and infrastructure restoration jobs if the elites would only pay Reagan era taxes.
Now I personally think we have an obligation to help our neighbor when such assistance is needed, but it is tantamount to theft when one's money is confiscated and redistributed to others without one's consent.
For years the rich have benefited from welfare that takes tax money from poor and middle class workers and giving it to the rich in the form of tax cuts, loopholes, no bid contracts, earmarks, etc. This has led to the greatest inequity in income in our nation's history. The redistribution of which you speak is a fact, but it occurs in the opposite direction.
Of all of the people I know that want to abolish medicare and social security, not one blinks an eye when I bring up the fact that the wealthy have been stealing our tax dollars all along.
If a rich Saudi gets a bogus gov contract to build a park in Baghdad, and puts that money Dubai without building anything. This 'creates jobs'. When a 70 year wheelchair bound widow cashes her SSI check, that's theft.
How many of her neighbors are going to pay her rent and electric bill? Or buy her groceries? As times get harder, the answer will be zero. We've all read the stories of old folks dying in their homes with the smell growing for weeks without anyone noticing.
But that Sheik grows fat and adds more teens from Thailand to his harem. He has an army of Tea Party Radical and Republicans defending his way of life. His lifestyle is safe.
Here's a thought, let's tax the high income earners at a much higher rate as an incentive for them to earn even more money just to maintain their current level.
I agree with TomCat about the redistribution from the bottom to the top. That's one reason why I only worked when I had to during the last decade. I got tired of subsidizing the rich and the corporations with their tax loopholes, tax breaks and corporate welfare.
Kulkuri, in my view, the old system encouraged the wealthy to invest in people and assets. Because they were taxed high on income, they were encouraged to reinvest profits in infrastructure and training, rather than take the money out and put it in overseas accounts.
Now the wealth essentially strip mine corporations and leave them bankrupt, as it's in their interest to gut them, destroy jobs and take all of the money.
So any discussion on taxing the wealthy, really needs to include the topic of where would it be in America's interest to see the money go, when the wealthy start diverting the flow somewhere else.
TomCat, Wease and Kulkuri,
I think the underlying problem, apart from simple greed and political dominance by the economic elite, is really a cultivated reverence for wealth and the wealthy.
Hero worship is no longer simply a tool of militarism; it has been sculpted into the temple of Mammon now as well. Just as we are indoctrinated by corporate media to accept unending war as a legitimate "preventive" measure, we are to revere the economic elite as entitled to their political power by a “logic” similar to that notion of a divine right of kings. We are programmed to accept the unspoken concept of "divine right of Wealth". They're rich, therefore they deserve tax breaks, loopholes, incentives, and...the House and Senate.
Perhaps the time has come for a term limits amendment. Power in our congress ultimately seems to corrupt even the best-intentioned politician after a time.
Far better to limit their corruptibility and the damage they can do to our nation through wealthy patronage to their campaigns by making sure they don't serve more than two or three terms.
We need a lot more common sense citizen representatives and senators that understand our daily issues.
If we can dislodge the Charlie Rangels, John Dingels, and Orin Hatch's from office that have been in congress for decades, perhaps we can begin to solve some of these problems.
T. Paine, I don't think that the number of terms is the root of the problem. I don't that term limits will solve the problem either.
Since 2000 I've paid much more attention to candidates early in the primary process. I saw a number of folks that were seemingly honest, hard working well intentioned and intelligent, come up in the early polling and take the lead in the primaries.
Then watched an unknown with a big war chest and corporate backing burst on the scene. This new person would suddenly be the media and party darling. The previous candidate would stay ahead in the polls a while longer, but with no media attention, would soon be forgotten. The newcomer corporate candidate that no one had heard of before, went on to get the party nomination.
If you set up term limits, it's my belief that an infinite number of shills can be promoted by the corporate powers to fill the seats in a steady progression.
As long as the media can keep us divided, I see no solution that will solve this problem.
TP and Wease,
Even if term limits reversed corruption, which I highly doubt, it is a symptom, not the disease.
The only real solution would be the systemic cleansing of campaign cash and corporate personhood.
Dubya, like I said, I am all for the cleansing on corporate personhood, as long as the same is done to union, and other PAC's.
Only citizens in their private status as such should be allowed to make political contributions, in my opinion.
In the meantime, the government and the unions cannot be allowed to have unfettered free speech and pay for such campaigns against companies without them having the right to defend themselves accordingly. The problem is fixed by removing this "right" from them and keeping it as an exclusive right of the people as the Founders intended.
T. Paine, your last comment doesn't make any sense to me at all.
If your local union doesn't clean house to your satisfaction, then you want foreign corporations to write laws that constrain your rights?
What kind of thinking is that? You want a Muslim Sheik that owns a corporation making donations to your congressman to promote bills that force you to live your life according to benefit him, if it means that the local UAW doesn't have to clean house?
Think about what you're asking for.
"In the meantime, the government and the unions cannot be allowed to have unfettered free speech and pay for such campaigns against companies without them having the right to defend themselves accordingly."
Free speech doesn't apply to the government. the government hasn't been ruled a 'Person (endowed by the creator with inalienable rights)' by the Supreme Court.
Unions also haven't been declared a 'Person (endowed by the creator with inalienable rights)' by the Supreme Court.
Corporations have been ruled to have Inalienable Rights, Endowed by the Creator.
Now there are laws the restrict governments and unions in what they can say and how they can say it. But they are not considered to have an inalienable right to say it.
What the Supreme Court ruled is that paying a Congressman for favors is a form of free speech and that corporations have an inalienable right to Free Speech. This means that a Muslim corporation has an inalienable right to pay your congressman to promote a bill that promotes their interests over yours.
Interesting statistics for those concerned about the hijacking of elections by big business. Although I’m certain most here don’t consider unions big business.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories#printMode
Weaseldog, I think you missed the point. I don't want either unions, PAC's, or corporations to be able to donate money to politicians.
Foreign donors of any type should not be able and theorectically are not allowed to make such donations.
Isn't that the argument that the progressives are making falaciously against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?
I simply meant that while I disagree with Citizens vs. United, that I can understand the inherrent unfairness where unions and PAC's can defame a company in campaigns and via politicians and previously a corporation had no legal way of defending itself to the public. Now they can respond and defend themselves via contributing to a congressman etc. to defend their interests.
Great read, Dave.
Seems to me that if the rich (and they're incredibly, unbelievably rich today) can convince the poor to pay all the bills, there's a lesson there for us.
They care nothing about this country, and in fact, have shipped all their ill-gotten gains out and into financial investments in foreign countries already.
I know. I meet them every day.
And they congratulate themselves on the stoopidity of the American populace (whom they worked hard through their bought-and-paid-for MSM to make that way).
Love ya,
S
TP,
I think I get your point, but can you give an example of such a "victimized" corporation?
Dan,
Thank you. Let's assume Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is not biased. Ha. Even still, assuming so, we know that union money represents the interests of hundreds of thousands of middle class working Americans. And we know that the C of C money represents hundreds of members of the economic elite. It's pretty clear who is buying the greater share of "representation". Most of Labor's money goes to House races. The Senate is largely owned by insurance/pharma/energy interests.
Just watch. It will soon be clear which side has more campaign money to buy elections. At least union money is not secret, or from undisclosed sources.
Suzan,
You're right. The economic royalists have pulled it off. They have nurtured reverence in the masses for wealth and the wealthy. We are a nation of deluded Micawbers.
"Divine right of Wealth" is the foundation of our neo-feudalist system. Since "God's Own Party" ordains it, it must be so.
Dubya, as per your request, a good example of a corporation or industry being demonized would be the pharmaceutical industry.
One could say the same for "big tobacco" although I am less concerned about them due to their foolishness and duplicity.
Oh, and for the record once again, sir, the US chamber of commerce has 90% of its member businesses with 50 employees or less.
70% of member businesses have less than 20 employees. I would hardly define these companies individually as the "economic elite", my friend.
Dan,
Here is where your scale is tipped in favor of corporate interests over unions.
"The chamber and its affiliates allocated $144 million last year just for lobbying, making it the biggest lobbyist in the United States."
TP,
So we should have pity on the poor victimized pharmaceutical companies? They have more senators in their pockets than any ten states combined and they have the largest profit margins in the corporate world. Poor babies.
And here's where your percentage of small business influence in The Chamber of Secrets fades when viewed in light of facts:
Nearly half of its $140 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 donors.
From a couple articles on a so-called “nonprofit” organization of corporate profiteering, election buying, and lobbying:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chamber.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/231/535/Top_Corporations_aid_U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce_Campaign.html
Some more Big Money influence in the Chamber:
Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce kicked off a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation’s financial regulations.
Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.
And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending.
Health insurance providers funneled at least $10 million to the chamber last year, all of it anonymously, to oppose President Obama’s health care legislation.
Dow Chemical, for example, sent $1.7 million to the chamber in the past year to cover not only its annual membership dues, but also to support lobbying and legal campaigns. Those included one against legislation requiring stronger measures to protect chemical plants from attack.
Prudential Financial’s $2 million donation last year coincided with a chamber lobbying effort against elements of the financial regulation bill in Congress.
More recently, the News Corporation gave $1 million to support the chamber’s political efforts this fall; Chairman Rupert Murdoch said it was in best interests of his company and the country “that there be a fair amount of change in Washington.”
How’s that for “fair and balanced” news? Now THAT is the kind of change Murdoch and the Chamber can believe in, government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.
Dave, I think you're onto something there.
TPaine, although I have no peoblem with term limits and even voted for them here, a fellow named Solon tried that in Athens over 2,000 years ago. The pols proved just as willing to sell out for future employment as they were to sell out for election support.
First, you’re argument that union money “represents the interests of hundreds of thousands of middle class working Americans” seems weak. Do the “big nasty businesses not employ hundreds of thousands of similar working class Americans?
If the issue is foreign money, even the NY Crimes states there is little if any evidence of impropriety on the part of the Chamber, and duly notes that the AFL-CIO and Sierra Club have international affiliations as well. If the issue is undisclosed donors, President Obama seems more than a hypocrite since he refused to disclose millions of campaign funds that potentially launched him to victory. If we’re worried about undue influence coming from a disproportionate few, then perhaps we need a shine a light on Mr. George Soros. For the last decade he’s pumped millions into far left organizations, and certainly his money must be considered foreign in nature, since to avoid the American tax system most of it is secure in offshore places. Honestly, to me it sounds mostly like a party and president who has quickly fallen out of favor with the people and desperate times call for half-measures and half-truths. Dave, say it ain’t so….fear mongering coming from the left. "My God, someone's trying to steal the election!"
Only until they can employ hundreds of thousands of working class Chinese. ;-)
Dan,
The fallacy of your reasoning is the fact that CEO's interests and their employees' interests are not identical. Yes there may be some overlap, but tax breaks for billionaires is not a common interest. The article was clear about that.
Soros, schmoros. At least he's not donating millions to Republicans, and then lying about being "fair and balanced" like Murdoch.
You cannot truthfully state Big Business will be outspent by labor in politics. Bottom line.
And my point remains. We need to reduce the influence of money in our government. If that is fear-mongering what would you call the WMD, "nukular" aluminum tubes, and Saddam/al-Qaeda connections? What about Cheney saying before the 2004 election, "If Americans don't make the right choice, we're gonna get hit again"?
Please.
And don't get too over-excited about Obama's ratings. If he is "out of favor", then he is less so than "His Holiness" Saint Reagan was. His approval is higher than Reagan's at the same point in their term.
Again, please.
If you want the government controlled by Big Money, just say so and be happy.
TomCat,
Yes, that's what they mean about Republicans being for more jobs.
Dubya, you are right about Reagan's vs. Obama's approval ratings at this point in their presidencies.
What you are missing is that Reagan's unfavorable rating was mild and strictly left-wing partisan. Obama's unfavorables are quite strong and encompasses the right, the independents, and even some of those disillusioned on the left.
That is a big and dangerous difference for Obama. He has a lot of work to do to recover lost ground if he hopes to be re-elected... God save the nation if he is successful! ;)
TP,
I appreciate your interest in historical context. I'm a bit of a history buff in limited areas.
My reaction was, at first, slightly befuddled. I needed to take a closer look.
Hmm. Let me get this straight about what I am missing from your version of history. First it’s nice to know the left-wing was mild about their disapproval of Reagan. Yes, as I remember the times, very few of us accused him of being a fascist, and we were not calling for his impeachment in the first two years. His worst transgressions, and episodes he’d later “can’t recall”, would be more to the standards of high crimes and misdemeanors for impeachment.
I also recall many "independents" were unhappy with the high unemployment, and fewer good jobs. Unemployment was 7.6 when he took office had risen to 9.7 and 9.6 in ’82 and ’83. That would do it.
Yes, we liberals were quite civil in our dissent during Reagan’s first two years. How unlike the openly hostile, right-winged, paranoid, delusional, tea-brained, birther, Red baiting, Fox fueled, Beck-confused, Limbaugh-lying disapproval displayed by millions of Americans who think Obama is a Muslim. The rest of the disapproval comes from their brighter cousins who have been convinced Obama, the corporatist, is Obama the fascist/communist. Yes, that would be the strong disapproval from the right.
The mild unfavorable rating would be from the independents, and from disappointed liberals who thought Obama was one of them. But wait. Those disillusioned on the left make up a percentage of the total, along with the right-wingers who are also a given percentage. That would logically mean two possibilities. First is the liberal faction would indicate a lower percentage of independents’ disapproval. That would suggest Obama being seen as more of a moderate. The second possibility would be a larger percentage of Americans are growing ignorant and dense enough to think Obama is a Muslim/Commie. That would be a big and dangerous difference for Obama, and the rest of us, too.
The latter is too frightening to ignore, because it’s probably a growing threat. But I would tend to side with the first line of reasoning, for now.
If the crowd who thinks Obama is a Muslim Commie is successful in restoring power to the Neocon, economic elite, war-mongering police state builders, then only God, or benevolent extraterrestrial intervention, can save the nation.
BILL TAXED THE TOP 1% and it worked great! Bill's years of peace and prosperity began with a war over taxes, just like now. When President Clinton was seeking to enact his first federal budget in 1993. ,President Clinton found his "fiscally conservative" predecessor had left a $290-billion deficit. He
responded by imposing substantial tax increases on the top 1 percent of
taxpayers and omitting the "middle-class tax cut" he had promised in his
campaign. That measure passed by one vote in the Senate.
Predictably, the Republican right threw a screaming tantrum, falsely
describing the tax increase as the "largest in history" (that honor
actually belonged to Reagan) and warning that it would result in a severe
recession or worse. Conservative politicians and pundits unanimously
predicted that higher taxes would mean fewer jobs and larger deficits.
They were wrong. Within a few years after the ’93
tax hike, we were enjoying full employment, shrinking poverty, rising
household incomes at all levels, greater home ownership—and the prospect
of a gigantic federal surplus. but Bush fixed all of that. Clinton left almost no deficit, and most of that was the payments on Reagan burrowing. By the time Bush was gone we were making payments on 1.3 trillions dollars. Almost all most to rich foreigners.
Anonymous,
And that is why the right hated Clinton. He was effective, so they had to resort to the politics of personal destruction. This is how they still operate.
Post a Comment