I think Ed Kilgore may be right on this issue:
This appointment represents the giant balloon payment at the end of the mortgage the GOP signed with the Cultural Right at least 25 years ago. Social conservatives have agreed over and over again to missed payments, refinancings, and in their view, generous terms, but the balance is finally due, and if Bush doesn’t pay up, they’ll foreclose their entire alliance with the Republican Party.
Sure, they care about other issues, from gay marriage to taxes to Iraq, but abortion is the issue that makes most Cultural Right activists get up in the morning and stuff envelopes and staff phone banks for the GOP. And for decades now, Republicans have told them they can’t do anything much about it until they can change the Supreme Court. With a pro-choice Justice stepping down, the subject can no longer be avoided. And thanks to the Souter precedent (and indeed, the O’Connor and Kennedy precedents), there’s no way Bush can finesse an appointment that’s anything less than a guaranteed vote to overturn Roe.
Moreover, if Bush has any willingness to pull a Sister Souljah on the Cultural Right, he’s certainly waited a long, long time to exercise it. Solidifying his conservative base has been the first principle of the Bush/Rove formula all along, and as recently as this week, he proved it again with an Iraq speech that appeared to be aimed almost exclusively at shoring up conservative support for his war policies.
Just examine the rhetoric from Focus on the Family:
“President Bush must nominate someone whose judicial philosophy is crystal clear. And no one has been clearer about this than the President himself, who said during his campaign that he would appoint justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. We have full confidence that he will carry out that pledge.”
Let’s get it out there: how many here think that if the President nominates Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court it would manifest itself as an unmitigated disaster for the President, the GOP, and conservatives?
And if so, how will you react?I do. And if it happens, I’m taking up golf. I’m not going to give any money to any Republican party organization, nor any incumbent.
Let me be blunt. If President Bush nominates Alberto Gonzales to fill O
Doug
So is “Justices like Scalia and Thomas” code for “Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade and permit abortion to be outlawed”?
Tim F
As I’ve said before, if you enjoyed the Schiavo imbroglio then you’ll love this nomination fight.
It’s a shame to think that the WH may have to weather this fight without turd blossom.
KC
Of course he’s right. When I was one of those guys, I’d say abortion was the biggest political topic. Inevitably, every political coversation would get back to it. Next on the list was probably evolution, gays, and the rapture (not exactly political topics, but in the context in which they were often spoken about, often they were). What’s weird is that by the time I was making my exit, evolution was seen as the unifying concept behind abortion and gay marriage. Knock that out and the other stuff would go away. It was basically as if tons of souls would be saved in time for the rapture if evolution was written out of the science textbooks.
Jimmy Jazz
I think I need to save this for when people try to argue the relative dangers of the Republican and Democrat pandering to their bases.
Pan is a Non Stick Goatman
I’m a man, but if some Christian extremist comes to my New England town and tells me I can’t have an abortion if I so choose, I will seize his guns and bibles and abort them from the face of the planet.
My other question is, will it become illegal for a woman carrying, say, a dog fetus, to have that fetus aborted for the soul reason that she is not interested in raising puppies? Will there still be clinics open for women impregnated by aliens on brightly lit operating tables? Who, if not Rick Santorum himself, will look at the ultrasounds and determine if the woman is telling the truth when she claims the fetus is actually that of a humanoid extra-terrestrial?
This issue is so enormously difficult to legislate and enforce in any way, that I’m eagerly anticipating the human race once again making a supreme fool out of itself right in the USA before our media spectacles.
TJIT
If Dobson and I were in the same room we would both probably spontaneously combust, I am not what you would call a social conservative.
I do hope Dobson and his type help get a very conservative new supreme court justice confirmed. After watching the “liberal” justices and their decisions on Raich and Kelo it is painfully obvious that they don’t care about civil rights or defending the little guy. They only care about expanding federal government authority.
Pan is a Non Stick Goatman
The Kelo decision isn’t about expanding federal government authority. It gives more authority to municipal governments to make the call, and it by no means constitutes a ‘liberal’ position, which is why liberals and conservatives alike are upset about it. I would suggest that there isn’t a single ideological liberal on the courts, but rather a mix of ideological conservatives and practical political conservatives.
Ken Hahn
May I ask a question? What has Bush done for conservatives during his Presidency? Other than Iraq and some speeches, he has been a pretty good liberal Democrat. The size of government has grown exponentially, the border is wide open ( with amnesty seekers now being a large part of the illegal influx ), the federal government is involved in every educational matter on any level and the deficit is eating our future. No serious effort has been made to fight election fraud or control public employee unions. Tax cuts without spending cuts are worthless and seriously flawed legislation like the Patriot Act and McCain-Feingold has been passed into law. China continues its support of North Korea without penalty.
Conservatives would like something out of this administration besides some kind words and a pat on the head. Republican “moderates” don’t want to stop the Democratic agenda, just to slow it. Bush won the nomination in 2000 because country club eastern Republicans knew he wouldn’t push for conservative principles and McCain wasn’t going win. Like his father and grandfather, he is a New England aristocratic Republican who will avoid any real conservative policies while saying whatever is necessary to hold the base.
I fully expect a “moderate” nominee to the supreme court because it’s what Bush has done all along. He doesn’t believe in conservative principles and doesn’t have the guts to defend them if he did.
If you really think Bush would support a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court, I’d like to remind you of the current state of the Bolton nomination. Bolton will be sacrificed because we can’t hurt Harry Reid’s feelings and any conservative nominee to the Supreme Court will be set up for the same fate.
Kathy K
You know, I kind of hope Ken Hahn is correct.
Rick
Ken is; left wing lamentations to the contrary.
Cordially…
Jimmy Jazz
You’re the ones who keep voting for him.
Rick
Since I sincerely belive middling to be the enemy of the worse, I vote that way.
Cordially…
Al Maviva
You don’t seem to like the social conservative judges. I presume you also don’t like the judges who are fans of Jeff Rosen’s mystical “Constitution in Exile” – a term he basically made up and popularized because he couldn’t find an actual conspiracy of Lochner fans on the right, and instead chose to vilify the two predominant schools of thought within mainstream conservative legal philosophy – Chicago school regulated market types, and libertarian Randy Barnett types. And I guess you probably don’t like the meany textualists who practice a conservative method of interpretation, like Scalia.
But I’m curious – as a conservative contrarian, exactly what kind of Justice are you after? You seem to ding the folks with conservative legal methods (Scalia – but Breyer is also legally conservative, if that matters to you); conservative social tendencies (Rehnquist – but Ginsburg is paternalistic too); conservative views on the regulatory state (Kennedy, O’Connor, Thomas).
I suppose a good Sistah Souljah contrarian moment for Bush would be looking for another Souter, or perhaps a Justice Stevens. Yeah, we could find us a socially liberal, pro-regulatory state bozo, with no ascertainable legal method… that’d really piss off James Dobson now, wouldn’t it. Yep, nothing like hoisting a middle finger at 30% of the people who voted for you on a particular issue. It’d be a great triumph for contrarian conservatives everywhere, and boy, wouldn’t all those eeee-vil conservative interest groups be pissed. That would really send a message.
metalgrid
May I ask a question? What has Bush done for conservatives during his Presidency? Other than Iraq and some speeches, he has been a pretty good liberal Democrat. The size of government has grown exponentially, the border is wide open ( with amnesty seekers now being a large part of the illegal influx ), the federal government is involved in every educational matter on any level and the deficit is eating our future. No serious effort has been made to fight election fraud or control public employee unions. Tax cuts without spending cuts are worthless and seriously flawed legislation like the Patriot Act and McCain-Feingold has been passed into law. China continues its support of North Korea without penalty.
Whare are you talking about? The current spate of social cons don’t suffer from the cognitive dissonance of being socially conservative and fiscally liberal (in the classical liberal sense). They are socially conservative, focusing on the socialist fiscal nature in order to implement a socially conservative agenda. Simply put, you cannot implement a socially conservative methodology without setting up the proper governmental funding to implement it. If you make abortions illegal, you need the money to be able to enforce the law. In order to teach intelligent design in school, you still need the state to control those schools – and to outlaw private schools. Those all need money. Remember that bit about cognitive dissonance, well, this new breed of social cons are the first to have figured out that you cannot pursue a conservative agenda without the state to back them up. The poor fiscal/economic libertarians that went along for the ride are the sorry lot of enablers that still suffer from the cognitive dissonance of thinking that allying with social cons would accomplish their goals.
Conservatives would like something out of this administration besides some kind words and a pat on the head. Republican “moderates” don’t want to stop the Democratic agenda, just to slow it. Bush won the nomination in 2000 because country club eastern Republicans knew he wouldn’t push for conservative principles and McCain wasn’t going win. Like his father and grandfather, he is a New England aristocratic Republican who will avoid any real conservative policies while saying whatever is necessary to hold the base.
As I said before, you cannot pursue a socially conservative agenda without the money to make the state enforce that agenda. Socialists haven’t figured this out either. They cannot ever promote the concept of liberty, individual, social or otherwise, while still growing the government. Even worse, they end up creating the mechanism of the state controlling economic liberty and then handing the reigns over to the social cons to do with as they wish.
The only way to truely promote individual and economic/fiscal liberty is by shrinking government. It is the only cognitively agreeable way to go about it. There is eventually no difference between the socially “liberal” socialists and the socially “conservative” socialists – they’re both socialists, and the only thing that has been sacrificed in the process has been fiscal sanity.
tim
Man,if I wasn’t a serious libertarian before now, I am now, or something. Gawd. fuck the GOP. Not like the demos are any better, but… we need sometihg to stop this.
Sojourner
The reality is our current fiscal crisis is due largely to tax cuts for the wealthy. Does that mean there’s a third category, wealthy socialists?
metalgrid
The reality is our current fiscal crisis is due largely to tax cuts for the wealthy.
You forget the other side of the equation – the spending like drunken sailors part. Tax cuts + reduction in government spending can still get you a balanced state of affairs. But to be totally honest – for older people like me, the borrow and spend methodology of the government works just fine. I’ll be retired in Costa Rica when the time comes to pay the piper.
Does that mean there’s a third category, wealthy socialists?
That’s crony-capitalism – the end result of the socialist agenda of unintended consequences. Once you figure out the people to follow who know the loopholes to jump through, a lot of money can be made this way as well – no matter what the turn of your polical viewpoints. That’s the pragmatist in me :)
sojourner
Not true. Congress could cut all discretionary spending and that still wouldn’t cover the tax cuts.
Rick
Which is no reason not to do it.
Cordially…
Rick
Not that I accept the premise, either. The tax cuts were a small dial-down of every marginal rate (3% in my case, which I expect covers “the rich” as well), and income taxes aren’t the only source of federal receipts.
Cordially…
Dan
49% of the voters did not vote for George Bush in 2004. These people cannot be ignored if the Republican Party wants to maintain its majority esp. with a lot of Republicans turning against the President. Gonzalez could be an acceptable candidate for both parties in spite of all the religious bigotry. Besides, GW doesn’t need to get reelected; he just need to keep from being impeached over the issues that “Roving” the media. Let’s see, would GW pardon Karl.
Sojourner
On paper, the tax cuts may have appeared small. But in reality, they are, by far, the biggest contributor to the deficit. I wonder how many Americans understand their role in paying for additional shifts in wealth towards an elite few while their own wages remain largely stagnant.
Rick
I wonder how many Americans understand their role in paying for additional shifts in wealth towards an elite few while their own wages remain largely stagnant.
Soj.,
Let’s pursue this a bit, shall we? As an American, do *you* understand that your tax rate was cut? And do you consider that a “shift in wealth?”
And reality is, there is no “biggest contributor to the deficit,” since we can argue all day that it is entirely due to spending, both entitlement and discretionary. Poppy Bush raised taxes a record amount, and the deficit grew, nevertheless. Suggestive that economic growth plays an enormous part in the receipt equation.
So the 1991-2001 expansion did far more to tip the budget into surplus than the tax hikes of 1990 and 1993.
Cordially…
Sojourner
Of course, but it doesn’t begin to cover the cost to me and everyone else to pay off the huge increase in the debt from a tax cut that went largely to the wealthy. So it’s a net loss for me.
Suggestive that economic growth plays an enormous part in the receipt equation.
Which, of course, was what the tax cut was supposed to do. It didn’t work so now Bush wants to make it permanent. I don’t see the logic in that but logic really has nothing to do with this administration’s agenda.
Ken Hahn
Sorry about the delay in responding. I think the tax cuts could easily be covered by spending cuts. We need money to enforce a prohibition on abortion? Not really, it’s a state matter. Roe federalized it and we pay for abortion clinic protection. Let the states handle it. If outlawed the pay for enforcement, if legalized, then pay for protection.
Every social issue in which the federal government is involved there is massive waste and bureaucratic cost. Why do we have a federal education establishment with their own cabinet department? It’s a local issue. No child left behind in reality translate to no bureaucrat left unemployed. The same can be said for HHS, HUD, Labor, Commerce, Veterans Affairs, Transportation and ( I really hate this terminology ) Homeland Security.
We are constantly bombarded with stories of cuts in funding for social programs. When we look closely, we find that these “cuts” are just smaller increses that the bureaucrats demand.
We have reached the state where the second, ninth and tenth amendments are ignored by the courts while some parts of the first and fifth are raised to the status of scripture. Of course the pesky “free exercise” clause is just theory while the “establishment” clause is to be carve on stone tab;lets and worshipped.
We do not need to teach creation or intellegent design in the schools. But we really should teach what the word theory means. We need to treat all faiths ( including the largest one ) equally. We need to stop pretending that social programs have no cost and look at them with the same scepticism that we apply to all government activity.
Most of all we need to overcome the fable of non-discretionary spending. These items are off the table, not because they are necessary, but because Congress has agreed that they are. We need to review that agreement. All spending is money and should be allocated based on benefit. Yes, a promise by the government is to kept if possible, but all spending must be reviewed often.
The Bush Administration have been call big government conservative. They are liberals in sheep’s clothing. I do not accept the left setting the terms of the debate. Things are not off the table because you say they are. I do not accept that the Great Society programs and their bloated vampire bureaucracies are immortal. Government can be shrunk and will be eventually. Bush is just not doing it now.
Sojourner
Only through deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But when one considers the deep financial distress of the wealthy, I’m sure that lower and middle class people will accept even more sacrifices.
deepthought
Facts: 1) UNprecedented economic expansion, budget surpluses under Clinton thanks to the 1993 tax package that the GOP said would destroy the economy (and not one Repub in the Senate voted for.)
2) Massive tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy (mostly the SUPER wealthy) have ballooned the defecit at a time where spending is UNprecedented.
3) A bottomless pit of off-budget expenditures on Iraq, equalling 200 billion dollars of the 1 trillion in debt this administration has run up in the last four years.
4) And the GOP says … don’t worry about that stuff… don’t let the queers marry; don’t let evolution corrupt our kids God fearing minds; put the 10 Commandments in every courthouse, police station, library and school; make sure the rights of the unborn supercede the rights of the already born; make sure every six year olf has access to an uzi and a flamethrower (in case they want to go hunting) and WHATEVER YOU DO, be sure NOT to let consenting adults consent to anything you don’t approve of!
Ken Hahn
deepthought,
every one of your “facts” are opinions and they are all wrong.
1. The expansion was due to the Congress elected in 1994 who refused to fund the Clinton wish list of useless social program.
2. The tax cuts benefit everyone, but are meaningless without spending cuts.
3. The bottomless pit is social welfare spending which is both counterproductive and makes Enron’s auditing procedures seem like model of strictness.
4. It might be best to leave a social institution that has served mankind for ten thousand years pretty much alone and in any case, leave it to the states. Evolution is a theory ( which I believe pretty accurately describes the known facts ) and I have no problem with it so far as it is taught as a theory. Science is about questions, not facts. Demanding a theory that can neither be proved or disproved not be questioned moves you to the world of religion not science. If a local government wishes to place a quote from Jewish scripture up with other decorations, why the hell should you care? Please inform me of the last time one of the unborn killed a member of the born.
I freely admit that these are opinions and am willing to discuss or debate them with anyone who believes differently. Your political theology is not factual. It is, like mine, opinion. And no, I will not allow you to set the terms of the debate without question.
Sojourner,
I can see no reason to retain medicare or medicaid and I favor a social security buyout. Yes it will be a gigantic one time hit that will take us years to pay back, but it will return retirement back to the individual.
Why is the government responsible for health care?
Sojourner
This puts you in the distinct minority of Americans based on recent polls. Most people in this country understand that allowing old people to live in poverty and without health care is not acceptable, that allowing poor people to go without health care is not acceptable, that huge differences in wealth between the lower class and the very wealth is one of the most common factors that de-stabilizes a country.
The programs you reject distinguish this country from a banana republic. Thankfully, at least for now, the majority of the people in this country don’t care to live in a banana republic.
Rick
Soj,
Sometimes, I suspect you of just making up. Other times, I believe you’re just repeating nonsense gleaned elsewhere.
All taxpayers were treated as equals in regard to the tax cut. That would seem to be justice, but perhaps I’m due an explanation. The burdens assocated with debt service fall disproportionately on the high income types, just as the burdens of taxation do.
Which, of course, was what the tax cut was supposed to do. It didn’t work so now Bush wants to make it permanent.
Yes, it was quite an economic debacle. Might learn something, etc., ect.
Cordially…
Sojourner
Some facts for you. American wages have been stagnant over the past five years while corporate profits have increased significantly. The relative percentage of wealth held by the very wealthy has increased significantly but not for the middle class and lower class.
The rich get richer, while everyone else loses out. That might be your idea of fairness and a strong economy. For others, it’s just another step down the road to a banana republic.
So what’s today’s koolaid flavor?
Cordially…
Rick
Some facts for you. American wages have been stagnant over the past five years while corporate profits have increased significantly. The relative percentage of wealth held by the very wealthy has increased significantly but not for the middle class and lower class.
Which argues even for more tax cuts, so workers can keep more of what they earn. Sending it to Washington does nothing for them, except keep the Bush War Machine a-rollin’ through the fascist fields of SW Asia and the ME.
Corporate profits are a good thing. I do intend to treat you like you are retarded or anything, but when profits disappear, you get recession/depression, unemployment,destitution, etc.
The rich have been getting richer for decades, in part because, as a function of mathmatics, there is no determinable ceiling on the top of the scale, as there is for the ceilings of the other groups, usually divided into quintiles.
But everyone else loses out? Pshaw. I’m not in the plutocratic group, but I don’t begrudge them their harvests. One must till one’s own acre, and not look to blight one’s neighbors. Seems like basic, very unexceptional decency, but I guess some moral titans have bigger plans for the lumpen citizens.
Koolaid, no; it was latte, and the flavor was Ginger Snap (www.fasigs.com — highly recommended).
Cordially…
Sojourner
It costs so much more to re-pay the tax cuts than the workers get to keep. Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.
Corporate profits are great as long as they translate into jobs and wages. Unfortunately that part is missing.
I will talk down to you as well. If a small part of the population does well and the rest don’t, it’s a sham to claim that it’s a strong economy.
Rick
If a small part of the population does well and the rest don’t, it’s a sham to claim that it’s a strong economy.
Sojourner,
G*dd*mmit, I misspoke. I meant to write “I DON’T intend to treat you…” I apologize and am embarrassed. But, even that won’t teach me to proofread.”
As for the italicized quote, that would be a valid argument. But your premise is wrong. “The rest” are mostly advancing, every individual at a different speed, and different trajectory. Thus longitudinal surveys show income mobility over years, as younger workers climb the quintiles, and the older, “made it” types stagnate or hit rough patches, as in recessions, and drop.
These are conditions of economic liberty, and is fundamental to what has made our economy the world’s strong, year and decade in and out. A remarkable accomplishment for such a mongrel nation, and a heritage I wish to preserve. Noble, that’s what I am, on this Independence Day.
Cordially…
Sojourner
Sorry, Rick, but you’re gonna have to tone down the nobility thing.
See
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05133/504149.stm
The U.S. has about as much upward mobility as England and less than Canada and the Nordic countries.
Also, if workers’ wages are stagnant, what difference does their age make?
Gotta look through the smoke and mirrors if you want to see the truth.
Tom Grey - Liberty Dad
To decide if the Tax Cuts were for the rich, look at the percentage of the Income Tax collected by the Feds from the rich, the middle, the poor.
A tax cut for the rich means a lower percentage of revenue comes from the rich.
A neutral tax cut means the percentages stay the same (or neutral increase).
A tax cut for the middle means a lower percentage of revenue comes from the middle.
Look at Federal income tax revenue by quintile (or your division).
I understand that the answer is (c), a lower percentage of revenue comes from the middle (the rich pay more).
Perhaps some theoretical examples:
A middle guy pays, after house mortgage deductions, etc., some $10 000 before; and some $5 000 after.
A rich guy pays $100 000 before, and only $60 000 after.
The 60 of 65 (total) is more than the 100 of 110. Saving $5 of $10 is a bigger saving than saving $40 of $100
The Left that lies about the tax cut really wants to have lots of spending of Other People’s Money — meaning anybody who has more than them.
The Deficit means that, if the Reps lose the presidency, they can revert to become deficit hawks, and finally cut spending. Using the anti-deficit rhetoric of the current Dems.
The HUGE benefit of the Bush tax cuts was the fact that the dot.com bubble pop wealth loss was met with a minor recession, instead of balanced budget depression.
The Dems are excommunicating the big-spending pro-life Catholics; who have no other place to go AND are far more numerous than small-gov’t Libertarian types.
Abortion should never have been decided at a Federal Constitutional level; the USA, like the EU, can live with some states having it legal and some not legal.
The pro-life Right may go “too far” and make legal abortion an unconstitutional infringement on the right to life of a pre-born human (pre-born from conception, first union of DNA). But if so, the equality women have achieved in other economic areas means the pro-abortion lobby will be unlikely to generate massive support for pro-abortion candidates.
It will be a sad decade for small gov’t types; maybe a couple of sad decades.
Ken Hahn
Sojourner,
I realize I’m in the minority,as I have often been. I will rmain there whenever I’m convinced the majority is wrong. In this case I believe they ( and you ) are.
It is not social programs that differenciate us from the “banana republics”. It is the fact that we can have this discussion without either a death squad or a mob becoming involved. It’s not as if I don’t appriciate the offer of health care, it’s very generous. I’m 58 and in moderate health. But Soj, it’s not your money. You are holding a gun to heads of millions of working families and telling them to shell out for my medical costs.
I have every respect for charity if it is given. I utterly oppose it if it is taken. And government programs are totally inefficient. Each agency takes a brokers’ fee, from the IRS through to the local health agency that distributes the care. Your tax dollars will provide pennies to the recipients.
I doubt I can convince you and I know you can’t convince me. We can still say what we believe and try to impliment it without provoking violence. As before, that is what really seperates us from the “banana republics” or other less civil states.
Tom Grey - Liberty Dad
To decide if the Tax Cuts were for the rich, look at the percentage of the Income Tax collected by the Feds from the rich, the middle, the poor.
A tax cut for the rich means a lower percentage of revenue comes from the rich.
A neutral tax cut means the percentages stay the same (or neutral increase).
A tax cut for the middle means a lower percentage of revenue comes from the middle.
Look at Federal income tax revenue by quintile (or your division).
I understand that the answer is (c), a lower percentage of revenue comes from the middle (the rich pay more).
Perhaps some theoretical examples:
A middle guy pays, after house mortgage deductions, etc., some $10 000 before; and some $5 000 after.
A rich guy pays $100 000 before, and only $60 000 after.
The 60 of 65 (total) is more than the 100 of 110. Saving $5 of $10 is a bigger saving than saving $40 of $100
The Left that lies about the tax cut really wants to have lots of spending of Other People’s Money — meaning anybody who has more than them.
The Deficit means that, if the Reps lose the presidency, they can revert to become deficit hawks, and finally cut spending. Using the anti-deficit rhetoric of the current Dems.
The HUGE benefit of the Bush tax cuts was the fact that the dot.com bubble pop wealth loss was met with a minor recession, instead of balanced budget depression.
The Dems are excommunicating the big-spending pro-life Catholics; who have no other place to go AND are far more numerous than small-gov’t Libertarian types.
Abortion should never have been decided at a Federal Constitutional level; the USA, like the EU, can live with some states having it legal and some not legal.
The pro-life Right may go “too far” and make legal abortion an unconstitutional infringement on the right to life of a pre-born human (pre-born from conception, first union of DNA). But if so, the equality women have achieved in other economic areas means the pro-abortion lobby will be unlikely to generate massive support for pro-abortion candidates.
It will be a sad decade for small gov’t types; maybe a couple of sad decades.
Tom Grey - Liberty Dad
To decide if the Tax Cuts were for the rich, look at the percentage of the Income Tax collected by the Feds from the rich, the middle, the poor.
A tax cut for the rich means a lower percentage of revenue comes from the rich.
A neutral tax cut means the percentages stay the same (or neutral increase).
A tax cut for the middle means a lower percentage of revenue comes from the middle.
Look at Federal income tax revenue by quintile (or your division).
I understand that the answer is (c), a lower percentage of revenue comes from the middle (the rich pay more).
Perhaps some theoretical examples:
A middle guy pays, after house mortgage deductions, etc., some $10 000 before; and some $5 000 after.
A rich guy pays $100 000 before, and only $60 000 after.
The 60 of 65 (total) is more than the 100 of 110. Saving $5 of $10 is a bigger saving than saving $40 of $100
The Left that lies about the tax cut really wants to have lots of spending of Other People’s Money — meaning anybody who has more than them.
The Deficit means that, if the Reps lose the presidency, they can revert to become deficit hawks, and finally cut spending. Using the anti-deficit rhetoric of the current Dems.
The HUGE benefit of the Bush tax cuts was the fact that the dot.com bubble pop wealth loss was met with a minor recession, instead of balanced budget depression.
The Dems are excommunicating the big-spending pro-life Catholics; who have no other place to go AND are far more numerous than small-gov’t Libertarian types.
Abortion should never have been decided at a Federal Constitutional level; the USA, like the EU, can live with some states having it legal and some not legal.
The pro-life Right may go “too far” and make legal abortion an unconstitutional infringement on the right to life of a pre-born human (pre-born from conception, first union of DNA). But if so, the equality women have achieved in other economic areas means the pro-abortion lobby will be unlikely to generate massive support for pro-abortion candidates.
It will be a sad decade for small gov’t types; maybe a couple of sad decades.
Tom Grey - Liberty Dad
To decide if the Tax Cuts were for the rich, look at the percentage of the Income Tax collected by the Feds from the rich, the middle, the poor.
A tax cut for the rich means a lower percentage of revenue comes from the rich.
A neutral tax cut means the percentages stay the same (or neutral increase).
A tax cut for the middle means a lower percentage of revenue comes from the middle.
Look at Federal income tax revenue by quintile (or your division).
I understand that the answer is (c), a lower percentage of revenue comes from the middle (the rich pay more).
Perhaps some theoretical examples:
A middle guy pays, after house mortgage deductions, etc., some $10 000 before; and some $5 000 after.
A rich guy pays $100 000 before, and only $60 000 after.
The 60 of 65 (total) is more than the 100 of 110. Saving $5 of $10 is a bigger saving than saving $40 of $100
The Left that lies about the tax cut really wants to have lots of spending of Other People’s Money — meaning anybody who has more than them.
The Deficit means that, if the Reps lose the presidency, they can revert to become deficit hawks, and finally cut spending. Using the anti-deficit rhetoric of the current Dems.
The HUGE benefit of the Bush tax cuts was the fact that the dot.com bubble pop wealth loss was met with a minor recession, instead of balanced budget depression.
Tom Grey - Liberty Dad
To decide if the Tax Cuts were for the rich, look at the percentage of the Income Tax collected by the Feds from the rich, the middle, the poor.
A tax cut for the rich means a lower percentage of revenue comes from the rich.
A neutral tax cut means the percentages stay the same (or neutral increase).
A tax cut for the middle means a lower percentage of revenue comes from the middle.
Look at Federal income tax revenue by quintile (or your division).
I understand that the answer is (c), a lower percentage of revenue comes from the middle (the rich pay more).
Sojourner
This ignores the basic reality that these tax cuts have created tremendous national debt which will be paid for by everyone who pays taxes. This is clearly a shift of money from the middle class to the wealthy. No matter how you slice it, this is a fundamental fact. I get to help pay for Bill Gates’s tax cut. Whoo hoo.
This argument don’t swim anymore. Clinton balanced the budget, Bush blew it up. Spare me the trite sayings. Bush wants the middle class to pay for the wealthy. Isn’t that spending Other People’s Money? People who have a whole lot less of it?
Pure speculation. The reality is it’s been five years since the bubble burst. The economy would likely have started to right itself regardless. Plus we know it’s a scam because the tax cuts were meant to be a stimulus but now Bush is pushing to make them permanent. Permanent stimulus? Yeh, right.
Yeh, turn those women into broodmares. Nothing contributes more to economic equality than single motherhood. No wait, that’s welfare. Sorry for the confusion. What a totally idiotic thing to say.
And let’s not forget the positions of judges like Janice Rogers Brown who believes that sexual harassment is free speech and employment anti-discrimination laws are unconstitional. I have no idea what you mean by economic equality under this regime.
This is a sad decade for anyone who believes in the values of the founding fathers and fairness for all, not just the wealthy and powerful.
Sojourner
It is the working families who benefit most from government programs.
Oh my. There’s a whole slew of data showing that the opposite is the case. The costs of programs like Medicare are WAY LOWER than the corresponding private sector programs. Don’t forget the profit angle as well as those huge salaries for senior management. Your statement is simply not true.