Sarah Palin declared to Joe Biden during the VP debate, “You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that’s not patriotic.” (more…)
How quickly would the MSM have jumped on this statement had Sarah Palin made it?
“Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most,” he said. “Now it’d be different if you could make the case to me that by giving this tax cut to the very wealthy, everybody else was going to be better off. We saw what happened the last eight years when we gave that tax cut.”
Americans for Tax Reform has published a press release attacking Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for the presidency. In it they claim that Obama himself admits the tax hikes he wants to impose on richer Americans will hurt the economy.
The tax hikes the organization speak about are, especially, the Bush tax cuts which Obama does not want to make permanent. (more…)
Robert Reich, a former Clinton Secretary of Labor who now favors Barack Obama, says that the gas tax holiday Ms. Clinton supports - as does John McCain - is "economically stupid" and would increase demand for gas while costing the government $9B to finance. And he’s not alone.
(via memeorandum)
Sometimes I have a tendency to treat liberal as if it is a dirty word. And sometimes I skip the part about explaining why that is, yet again, because that dirtiness is so obvious. Since an apology is required for every misdeed in this day and age, well, I’m sorry for not spelling it out. 
Happily, Rachel Lucas is, using her own kind of straight talk, more than willing to take up my slack. Enjoy!
After months of bobbing, weaving and excusing, the Clinton’s released their tax returns. They are apparently almost twice as rich as was previously thought, with over 108 million dollars made in the last 8 years alone.
I guess we’ll have to wait for the more mathematically inclined bloggers to explain it to us, but I can’t see why they waited so long. They are filthy rich, but that has never bothered voters in their presidential candidates. They have business dealings with some company in Dubai and somewhat shady issues with a consulting company and their own charity, but if shady economic issues mattered, the Clinton clan would have fallen long before.
In a rare show of bi-partisan glad-handing, the House and President Bush have agreed on a so-called economic stimulus package that consists largely of “tax rebates” to be given to individuals earning < $75K per year and couples making < $150K.
From this perspective the plan could be called a tax cut and therefore be considered a good thing. However, the NY Times says that “the stipend of at least $300 would be paid to all workers receiving a paycheck, even those who did not earn enough to pay taxes last year.” (more…)
Economist Steven Landsburg has a new article in Slate magazine in which he gives his approval to Huckabee’s Fair Tax plan. His conclusion:
the underlying issue becomes a lot clearer once you realize that a sales tax is a modified income tax. The right question is: Is the proposed modification a good one? The answer, according to a growing consensus among macroeconomists, is: Yes.
In an e-mail to supporters Wednesday titled “How we win,” campaign manager Rick Davis mapped a path to victory: a “strong finish” in Iowa; the “top spot” in New Hampshire; a “well-positioned” showing in Michigan; carrying South Carolina; and a “unique ability” to compete in Florida.
Can he do it? He might. He’s most certainly making a comeback in the polls. A good showing in Iowa could very well result in a victory in New Hampshire after which he’ll do well in the other early states as well. And considering the fact that he’s considered to be a moderate by many, he’ll probably do well in big states if he’s considered to be the frontrunner after the first three, four primaries. (more…)
The Wall Street Journal has an editorial up, with the headline: “The Poor Get Richer.”
It’s been a rough week for John Edwards, and now comes more bad news for his “two Americas” campaign theme. A new study by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.
Jonathan Chait wondered why the CBO decided to look at the last 15 years. Why? Well, 1991 was a recession year. It’s quite logical, Chait argues, that today’s poor are better off than the poor during a time of recession. Also, the increase in their income occured in the 1990s. Low-income households with children saw, in fact, their income drop 10% from 2000 - 2005.
Jonathan: “The interesting question is whether, by the time the current business cycle hits its peak, incomes for people at the bottom will recover to where they were at the peak of the last business cycle. As of 2005 they still haven’t caught up.”
In other words, Bush’s policies do seem to make the poor poorer.
This is, of course, a tragedy to many. The weakest become even weaker. On the other hand, Bush et al. could argue that this is a logical short term result of their policies, which means less government (hand-outs) and more responsibility for the individual. They could argue that it the tax reforms, for instance, take a while to pay off.
I wonder what you all think about this matter: should the US government actively help the poor to get ‘richer’, or should the government simply withdraw as much as possible from the market place and give people the room necessary to improve themselves and their situation in life?
Or a little bit of both?
Rasmussen reports:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of American adults agree with New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s call to raise taxes on wealthy Americans. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 31% are opposed.
That is, of course, great news for Hillary Clinton. There is, however, also bad news:
However, the country is evenly divided when it comes to Clinton’s recent statement that she would appoint her husband as a roaming Ambassador to the world. Just 45% believe that having former President Bill Clinton fill this role would be a good idea while 42% disagree. Former President Clinton is viewed favorably by 57% of Americans.
On both topics, Democrats are overwhelming supportive and most Republicans are opposed. However, those not affiliated with either major party view them quite differently. By a 2-to-1 margin (58% to 29%), unaffiliateds support calls for higher taxes on the wealthy. At the same time, just 38% of unaffiliateds say appointing Bill Clinton as a roaming Ambassador is a good idea. Forty-six percent (46%) of unaffiliateds disagree.
The question is, for Hillary and Bill, can they be convinced that Bill is the right man for the job?
While most Americans (and Democratic Presidential hopefuls) support the notion of raising taxes on the wealthy, the issue is challenging politically. Two-thirds (67%) of those who earn less than $60,000 a year believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is a good idea. Support for this policy falls to 49% among those earning more than $60,000 annually.
That makes sense, doesn’t it? It doesn’t have anything to do with justice: if everyone has to pay 30% income taxes, then, someone who earns $100,000 a year already pays more than those who earn, say $50,000. As such, having a flat tax would be the ‘right’ thing to do, common sense dictates, or at least, that is how those who earn quite a lot perceive it.
Selfish? Perhaps (I agree with that view though).
On the other hand those who earn less than $60,000 are perhaps even more selfish. They not only want to pay as little taxes as possible, they want other people to pay more. The first group of people is not advocating taking money from anyone, while the second group is. If they believe that the government should take care of certain things, they should equally carry the burden. Of course they won’t do that, because doing so would mean that have less money to spend.
Selfish? You bet.
It never ceases to amaze me how generous people are with other people’s money.
Also: it is very dangerous, in any society, for the majority (middle class) to believe that it is quite alright to take and take and take from those who have more. A lack of respect for the right of property hurts freemdom tremendously, since it’s the very foundation of the liberty we enjoy, or are supposed to enjoy.
|
|