The Week in Blog: Leaning Forward (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

[Bloggingheads]

[propagandhi]

At this point I couldn't help but think of this

There has to be a Hans Moleman out there on Newt's side somewhere...

[David Edenden]

If Perry beats Obama, with his "Christian" support for Israel, can we kiss goodbye Arab/Muslim support for the "war on terror"?

Will it make the US any safer?

Perry, stood shoulder to shoulder with a foreign politician, Israeli deputy speaker of the Knesset, who criticized the President of the United States. Is the US becoming a banana republic?

If Obama had any balls, he would ban this sucker from entering the US again.

What would Perry say of Harry Reid went to Israel and stood shoulder to shoulder with the new Labour Party leader and denounced Netanyahu?

Discuss for nest week!

[harkin]

Originally Posted by David Edenden

Perry, stood shoulder to shoulder with a foreign politician, Israeli deputy speaker of the Knesset, who criticized the President of the United States. Is the US becoming a banana republic?

Could have been worse, he could have invited the president of a country with immigration laws far harsher than the US to come and lecture the Congress on how the United States treats illegals.

Don't slip on the peel.

[basman]

I thought it about Reagan; I thought it about Bush 43: now I say to myself, "Rick Perry, a viable candidate, what is the American world coming to?"

But, clearly, on this, don't go by me.

Itzik Basman

[BenW]

It is so ludicrous to suggest Obama hasn't bent over backwards over and over again to work with republicans, that I was tempted to just not say anything. It hurts to have to acknowledge reasonable people feel this way. Perhaps there's some correlation between my reluctance to say anything and the fact that the majority of the right seem to think Obama is the most radical president in US history.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by David Edenden

If Perry beats Obama, with his "Christian" support for Israel, can we kiss goodbye Arab/Muslim support for the "war on terror"?

Perry's position on Israel is almost identical to Obama's. It's very hard to get to the right of Obama. There's just no daylight. For all practical purposes, on Israel Obama is Netanyahu is Hillary Clinton is Mitt Romney is Rick Perry.

The Republican candidates are trying to play Obama as not supportive enough of Israel because they still want to portray him as a liberal internationalist wimp, but he certainly hasn't governed that way. On the contrary, he's been in Netanyahu's pocket all the way.

So Republican posturing in "defense of Israel" is about as persuasive (and truthful) as posturing that they are flag-waving patriots while Obama refuses to wear a flag pin.

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Perry's position on Israel is almost identical to Obama's. It's very hard to get to the right of Obama. There's just no daylight. For all practical purposes, on Israel Obama is Netanyahu is Hillary Clinton is Mitt Romney is Rick Perry.

The Republican candidates are trying to play Obama as not supportive enough of Israel because they still want to portray him as a liberal internationalist wimp, but he certainly hasn't governed that way. On the contrary, he's been in Netanyahu's pocket all the way.

So Republican posturing in "defense of Israel" is about as persuasive (and truthful) as posturing that they are flag-waving patriots while Obama refuses to wear a flag pin.

???????

I can't tell if you're being intentionally provocative, or if you actually believe that. I understand you're probably disappointed with Obama on Israel, but that doesn't call for wild exaggerations. To get to the right of Barack Obama on Israel...isn't very difficult. Let is count the ways. You could stop giving speeches where you essentially imply moral equivalence between the enemies of Israel and Israel itself. You could stop hectoring them about settlements. You could have a much warmer personal relationship with the Israeli PM. You could not suggest 1967 borders (with the swap caveats, I suppose) as a baseline for negotiations. These might be positions don't like, but they certainly exist, and you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

[badhatharry]

Geez, Matt. Your LeanForward ad sounds a lot like Chuck Todd's, the big difference being that you, a conservative, are riding public transport while Todd is riding solo in his car.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

???????
To get to the right of Barack Obama on Israel...isn't very difficult. Let is count the ways. You could stop giving speeches where you essentially imply moral equivalence between the enemies of Israel and Israel itself. You could stop hectoring them about settlements. You could have a much warmer personal relationship with the Israeli PM. You could not suggest 1967 borders (with the swap caveats, I suppose) as a baseline for negotiations.

There is broad consensus among the community of nations, and there has been for quite some time, that the 67 borders provide the baseline for negotiations and that settlement expansion is intolerable. Period. Obama has broken no ground there and only reiterated the obvious.

Your other points characterizing the Palestinians as "enemies," pretending Obama is not sympathetic to Zionism, and fretting that he's not warm and fuzzy enough with Netanyahu are frankly too silly to entertain.



Here is the argument for not only why you can't get to the right of Obama, but why arguably he's worse than Bush on Israel. I don't share Rosenberg's view that Obama is worse than Bush, but he's certainly right to point out that O is continuing decades of US unblinking loyalty to right-wing Israeli positions.

This administration has been the most one-sided supporter of everything Israel asks for in history. There is simply no competition.

Not even George W. Bush comes close. When the Israelis, following Obama's election, asked Bush to give Israel permission to bomb Iran, he said "no," despite his Vice President and neocon aides who pushed the Israeli position hard. Bush also did more than Obama to advance the peace process the Israeli right hates so much, convening an international summit at Aqaba and being the first president to say, in unambiguous terms, that the United States fully supports "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security."

On Israel, Obama is to the right of Bush or Reagan and certainly Clinton. On Israel and Palestine, Barack Obama is Rick Perry.

Of course, none of Obama's outrageous pandering to Netanyahu and his acolytes here impresses the Israel Firsters. They disliked Obama from day one, for all kinds of obvious reasons, and they condemned his United Nations speech, as typically anti-Israel.

They are lying and they know it.

[graz]

Here's some support of that point:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...to-israel.html

[carkrueger]

Here is what Rush said about Elizabeth Warrens comments "Nobody ever got rich on his own"? What this is, Marx had a thing called surplus value. This is Marxism, pure and simple, and the surplus value of the... Marx's belief is that workers, laborers, are getting screwed by not getting any of the profits of the company, only their wages."

"Ms. Warren, the government doesn't have any money until it takes it from people first. But this notion that we're all just one giant commune is the justification for the redistribution of wealth."

"By the way, what if the factory fails, Ms. Warren?"Are you gonna pay for the failure? You gonna help 'em keep their house? The factory builder has risked everything. Nobody else risked anything.

"The left in this country is jazzed. They were celebrating this. This is the greatest thing that's ever hit YouTube to them."But I'm telling you, folks: This grand total here of 60 seconds is more instructional and informative of what we're up against. These are like one-armed lunatics in a fight. They never stop swinging no matter what. This is the kind of stuff they believe: Total collectivism. It's all found in Marx.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Perry's position on Israel is almost identical to Obama's. It's very hard to get to the right of Obama. There's just no daylight. For all practical purposes, on Israel Obama is Netanyahu is Hillary Clinton is Mitt Romney is Rick Perry.

The Republican candidates are trying to play Obama as not supportive enough of Israel because they still want to portray him as a liberal internationalist wimp, but he certainly hasn't governed that way. On the contrary, he's been in Netanyahu's pocket all the way.

So Republican posturing in "defense of Israel" is about as persuasive (and truthful) as posturing that they are flag-waving patriots while Obama refuses to wear a flag pin.

You are almost correct in your first paragraph. However, there was a little daylight. A tiny, tiny, bit. Mitt Romney calls it an 'inch'. However, an inch is all it takes, Obama gave it to the Republicans and they are driving a willing wedge named Bibi Netanyahu into it. Or are the Republicans the wedge and Bibi the driver...? (In any case, I'm now going to jump off this speeding metaphor train).

You're a little in denial that Republican posturing on this isn't persuasive. Obama's speech at the U.N. is proof of that. I think this clears everything up; we are not, never were, and never can be anything more then a supporter of whatever the Israelis themselves decide to do. This is the political reality. The sooner this is realized, the quicker progress can be made.

It's time to stop blaming and looking toward US politicians and focus on Israel itself. They elected Bibi Netanyahu. He represents them. If they want something different, they will elect someone different.

[Ocean]

So, we can conclude that neither you nor Rush understand a blip about what Elizabeth Warren (or Marx) said. Great. Keep passing the meme and the ignorance. That's the Great Republican Party these days.

[rcocean]

Matt,

Conservatives don't read conservative columnists or websites to read attacks on Sarah Palin. We've gotten that from the Liberal MSM 24/7 for the last 3 years. That's why you get attacked.

And as shown by Tucker's running Tyson's remarks on Palin "The Daily Caller" seems to have a problem with Palin and strong women in general. Maybe, its the bow-ties.

As for Rubin, if you run a google on her Palin columns she comes off as David Frum with tits.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

So, we can conclude that neither you nor Rush understand a blip about what Elizabeth Warren (or Marx) said. Great. Keep passing the meme and the ignorance. That's the Great Republican Party these days.

Well, I'm sure there's a lot of room for interpretation but here's what Marx thought about surplus value which isn't that far off from what Limbaugh said.

Marx held that, in capitalism, labour was merely a commodity: in exchange for work, a labourer would receive a subsistence wage. Marx speculated, however, that the owner of capital could force the worker to spend more time on the job than was necessary for earning this subsistence income, and the excess product—or surplus value—thus created would be claimed by the owner.

I suppose that this can be directly related to what Warren was saying. She seems to be saying that the rich don't pay enough for the benefits they get from society so they should pay more taxes on the profits they wrest from the workers and society in general and give it to the government so it can be distributed to the people it was originally taken from.

Yet they do pay more than anyone else. However people on the left will say they're paying less than they did before and on and on it goes.

Bottom line, Warren doesn't want the rich to think they got where they are on their own and they need to pay back, or actually forward, an unspecified amount but more than they are currently paying.

And the crowd went wild.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I suppose that this can be directly related to what Warren was saying. She seems to be saying that the rich don't pay enough for the benefits they get from society so they should pay more taxes on the profits they wrest from the workers and society in general and give it to the government so it can be distributed to the people it was originally taken from.
.

Nice use of the word 'wrest', as if someone was coerced somewhere in the process whereby a person becomes legally rich in this country. I think this does, on a certain level, describe Warren's attitude and those who cheered her.

On a deeper level, I think what she is saying is that whatever wealth/property a person owns in society, it is not just their property and wealth. Since they used public property and public capital in terms of publicly educated workers, the wealth they own belongs to everyone, not just them. Therefore we all have equal say in deciding how the wealth, which just happens to be in a particular person's safekeeping, is to be distributed to the rest of us to whom it belongs as well.

If one assumes she was in polemic against Republicans, I don't know what else she could have been saying. Obviously Republicans realize that wealth comes from an economy in which many people, as well as the public, contributes to. Everyone knows this. So, if someone has a an explanation other then what me or badhat has described, I'd be interested to read that.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by graz

Here's some support of that point:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...to-israel.html

See also the New York article I posted in the Miller/Levy thread, which I think is a very balanced piece.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Nice use of the word 'wrest', as if someone was coerced somewhere in the process whereby a person becomes legally rich in this country. I think this does, on a certain level, describe Warren's attitude and those who cheered her.

On a deeper level, I think what she is saying is that whatever wealth/property a person owns in society, it is not just their property and wealth. Since they used public property and public capital in terms of publicly educated workers, the wealth they own belongs to everyone, not just them. Therefore we all have equal say in deciding how the wealth, which just happens to be in a particular person's safekeeping, is to be distributed to the rest of us to whom it belongs as well.

If one assumes she was in polemic against Republicans, I don't know what else she could have been saying. Obviously Republicans realize that wealth comes from an economy in which many people, as well as the public, contributes to. Everyone knows this. So, if someone has a an explanation other then what me or badhat has described, I'd be interested to read that.

I think Warren's points are pretty self explanatory. You don't need to go to any deep analysis or theory of economics or philosophy of wealth to understand it.

I found Limbaugh's comment and elaboration tendentious and, well, simply put, wrong. Read what he said (according to carkrueger):

"Nobody ever got rich on his own"? What this is, Marx had a thing called surplus value. This is Marxism, pure and simple, and the surplus value of the... Marx's belief is that workers, laborers, are getting screwed by not getting any of the profits of the company, only their wages."

Was Warren talking about laborers and their wages? Or was she talking about companies and their taxes?

"Ms. Warren, the government doesn't have any money until it takes it from people first. "

Hard to believe that Warren would need to be reminded of this or that this relates directly to her statements.

" But this notion that we're all just one giant commune is the justification for the redistribution of wealth."

Commune? Justifying redistribution of wealth? So anyone who has ever advocated for the idea of taxes is now considered to be a communist or a Marxist?

"By the way, what if the factory fails, Ms. Warren?"Are you gonna pay for the failure? You gonna help 'em keep their house? The factory builder has risked everything. Nobody else risked anything.

Considering bankrupcy laws and other possible goverment supported measures, I'm not sure what Limbaugh is trying to say here. I actually don't care either. I've heard enough of him that his arguments offer no interest to me. Intellectually he's a waste of time.

"The left in this country is jazzed. They were celebrating this. This is the greatest thing that's ever hit YouTube to them."But I'm telling you, folks: This grand total here of 60 seconds is more instructional and informative of what we're up against. These are like one-armed lunatics in a fight. They never stop swinging no matter what. This is the kind of stuff they believe: Total collectivism. It's all found in Marx.

Wow. Amazing conclusions he's arrived at from a simple explanation about why taxes aren't an optional item, government stealing or an act of charity, but rather the payment of a debt, proportional to the wealth being produced, in return for the multiple public goods and services that are being utilized in such production.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by whburgess

On a deeper level, I think what she is saying is that whatever wealth/property a person owns in society, it is not just their property and wealth. Since they used public property and public capital in terms of publicly educated workers, the wealth they own belongs to everyone, not just them. Therefore we all have equal say in deciding how the wealth, which just happens to be in a particular person's safekeeping, is to be distributed to the rest of us to whom it belongs as well.

YOu don't think this is at all an overstatement?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Wow. Amazing conclusions he's arrived at from a simple explanation about why taxes aren't an optional item, government stealing or an act of charity, but rather the payment of a debt, proportional to the wealth being produced, in return for the multiple public goods and services that are being utilized in such production.

Did Warren think that people weren't aware that taxes aren't an optional item? She was intimating that business and the rich need to pay more because they are getting a whole lot more than they give. She didn't mention how much they would need to pay to make things sort of even.

I actually have never heard of taxes being described as a payment of debt for public goods utilized in production. We all use the roads and pay to have them built. Trucking companies pay more to use the roads and pass that on to the folks whose freight they carry. I also think consumers benefit from suppliers being able to transport their goods. Everyone shares the cost and benefit.

When a business builds a factory they pay lots of fees to be able to do this. They pay property taxes. Their locality gets the benefits of sales tax they generate and the sales tax their employees pay when they buy stuff. So this is not a one way street. Communities benefit from business, too.

I have never heard of business paying taxes to pay back for the education that its workers get. It would seem that the workers are gaining the benefit from education by being able to secure a job and fulfill job requirements. Too bad the education system doesn't do a better job. Maybe if business paid more taxes...

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

YOu don't think this is at all an overstatement?

It sounds like an accurate description of what a lot of people on the left are saying these days.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I actually have never heard of taxes being described as a payment of debt for public goods utilized in production.

This just seems remarkable to me.

We all use the roads and pay to have them built. Trucking companies pay more to use the roads and pass that on to the folks whose freight they carry. I also think consumers benefit from suppliers being able to transport their goods. Everyone shares the cost and benefit.

Yes, and some benefit more than others. But roads are a general good.

When a business builds a factory they pay lots of fees to be able to do this.

Eh, not always, especially with incentives to move places.

They pay property taxes. Their locality gets the benefits of sales tax they generate and the sales tax their employees pay when they buy stuff. So this is not a one way street. Communities benefit from business, too.

I have never heard of business paying taxes to pay back for the education that its workers get.

This is your claim that seems the oddest to me. Surely a common view is that public education is important because it's good for society, not that it's merely a benefit for the educated. Certainly I think I'm better off if we have a somewhat educated workforce, whether that directly affects me or not, and I know my business cares deeply about the availability of educated employees. It's why it -- wrongly, IMO -- tends to prefer college educated people for jobs that traditionally wouldn't have called for that, something much lamented here.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

YOu don't think this is at all an overstatement?

You think? Given the most common meme these days about taxes (after we can't raise them) is poor and middle class people pay too few, it seems odd to think you can keep going to the class war argument on the other side. But apparently you can.

[graz]

Originally Posted by stephanie

You think? Given the most common meme these days about taxes (after we can't raise them) is poor and middle class people pay too few, it seems odd to think you can keep going to the class war argument on the other side. But apparently you can.

Frank Luntz approves this message!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by stephanie

This just seems remarkable to me.

I was specifically referring to the means of production. We, of course, pay taxes for things that benefit us, like roads. And I did say that trucking companies pay more for the use of those roads because they benefit, in a monetary way, more and they contribute more to the degradation of them. This makes sense. But for a company to be paying specifically for infrastructure because it benefits their production model, well I've just never heard it phrased that way. And as I pointed out in my first post, roads also benefit consumers of goods so where should the line be drawn?

This is your claim that seems the oddest to me. Surely a common view is that public education is important because it's good for society, not that it's merely a benefit for the educated.

Well yes, but Warren wants business to pay more taxes because an educated workforce benefits them. OK, but how much more? How do you measure what part of education benefits the one who is being educated vs the one who is hiring the person who is educated?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

It sounds like an accurate description of what a lot of people on the left are saying these days.

I have literally heard no one say anything like it in the last four years.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by graz

Frank Luntz approves this message!

This seems an insult from what I know about his focus groups, but I don't get it.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

yes, but Warren wants business to pay more taxes because an educated workforce benefits them. OK, but how much more? How do you measure what part of education benefits the one who is being educated vs the one who is hiring the person who is educated?

I doubt anyone thinks there's a precise number, but the idea of a corporate income tax or, for that matter, a progressive income tax seems to me obvious and non controversial. However, I actually would be interested in Parallax's compromise where we get rid of the corporate income tax (and all the fights over incentives and corporate welfare and so on) in exchange for raising the capital gains tax to income levels.

Not that this actually has a chance of happening.

[graz]

Originally Posted by stephanie

This seems an insult from what I know about his focus groups, but I don't get it.

No insult. I was kidding about how Luntz would love the counterintuitive part that has a vocal minority claiming victimhood on behalf of "the rich". Most of the clamoring is coming from the "almost poor" electorate ... go figure.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by miceelf

YOu don't think this is at all an overstatement?

What she said resonated with a lot of people on the left as a powerful statement for raising taxes as well as a powerful polemic against those (Republicans) who are against it.

Also, what she said, taken at face value, is obvious. No Republican would disagree with it. She basically reiterated that we all live in an interdependent economy. Maybe she phrased it in a slightly different way then a Republican would: "No one got rich by themselves". Maybe a Republican would phrase it something like "Our market economy helps those with initiative and talent to do what they do best, which in turn helps all of us".
But both of these ways of expressing it say essentially the same thing.

I'm trying to figure out what it is she said that makes it so noteworthy to liberals. That's what I came up with. Yes, I'd say it seems a bit of an overstatement to me. But the leftist impulse in regards to 'income inequality' often seems understandable, to me, in these overstated terms.

The argument over taxes isn't over whether or not rich people should pay taxes. It's over whether or not their taxes should be increased. As I've said before, I think the real motivations on either side are not stated very often. I think the right essentially does not want the government getting any more money. They want to starve the beast. While on the left, I think 'inequality of income' and the desire to make it more equal, is a more powerful motivating factor then trying to fix the budget deficit.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by whburgess

I'm trying to figure out what it is she said that makes it so noteworthy to liberals. That's what I came up with. Yes, I'd say it seems a bit of an overstatement to me. But the leftist impulse in regards to 'income inequality' often seems understandable, to me, in these overstated terms.

The argument over taxes isn't over whether or not rich people should pay taxes. It's over whether or not their taxes should be increased. As I've said before, I think the real motivations on either side are not stated very often. I think the right essentially does not want the government getting any more money. They want to starve the beast. While on the left, I think 'inequality of income' and the desire to make it more equal, is a more powerful motivating factor then trying to fix the budget deficit.

I thought about this today and I agree with your interpretation. Her words are a dog whistle which says that the rich have too much and they don't want to give it up because they think they are entitled to every penny of it. She implies that's what those capitalists all think. But she's here to tell us that they have gotten rich on others' efforts and it's time they are made to realize it. Not only realize it but pay it back or forward or whatever.

No one likes to think that they have been taken advantage of and that somehow those rich have managed to get away with what was rightfully theirs. It's a powerful hook to tell people this. This is the message which is being broadcast all over the left these days. The narrative fits well with bank bailouts, record profits and two wars which weren't paid for.

I agree that the main impulse of the thinking republican is to starve the beast. He knows that when the government is given more money it will always want more.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Also, what she said, taken at face value, is obvious. No Republican would disagree with it. She basically reiterated that we all live in an interdependent economy.

I actually wonder if republicans WOULD agree with it, actually. Or at least many liberals see Republicans as in fact in disagreement with it, and they may be simply cheering someone who is saying this basic and obvious thing that doesn't seem to be informing the discussion. If this is so obvious and clear to all republicans, it's hard for me to see how a 4% increase in marginal tax rates for one group or another is being characterized as eat the rich or a return to socialism or whatever.

I think the question isn't so much using the tax structure to reduce inequality, but the question of how to close the deficit in a way that doesn't INCREASE the gap between rich and poor. The Republican solutions in terms of cuts are almost all targeted at the poor and the middle class. The Democrats' solutions are primarily increased taxes on the very wealthy. I don't think either are attempts directly to either increase the gap or decrease it. I just think that there's an agreement that someone is going to have to forego something, and the GOP tends to see the poor and middle class as coddled and undeserving and don't see the fact that their policy would increase this gap as a problem. The Dems tend to see the gap as a problem and don't want to make it worse. I don't think the current proposals are as much an attempt to reduce inequality as they are an attempt to keep it from getting worse.

[harkin]

Speaking of folks who don't know much about E Warren, include the staff of E Warren.

Then again, maybe they just thought that if she didn't hide the extra $128,000, people might think she was one of the hated overpaid rich.

"The Warren campaign revised the figure following a POLITICO report on Thursday, highlighting the fact that the Congressional Oversight Panel, which oversaw the TARP program, has not publicly disclosed exactly how it spent $10.5 million on salaries, travel, consultants and other expenses. Warren said she now supports public access to the oversight panel’s records, though her campaign wouldn’t say if she plans to actively push to open up the records."

Not bad for something she testified to the Congress was a "part-time job".

Change You Can Believe In!

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by harkin

Not bad for something she testified to the Congress was a "part-time job".

Change You Can Believe In!

LOL.

This is really small bore potatoes. When you consider that it takes Republican congressmen 200K to feed their families for a year.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...xrs=share_copy

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I actually wonder if republicans WOULD agree with it, actually. Or at least many liberals see Republicans as in fact in disagreement with it, and they may be simply cheering someone who is saying this basic and obvious thing that doesn't seem to be informing the discussion. If this is so obvious and clear to all republicans, it's hard for me to see how a 4% increase in marginal tax rates for one group or another is being characterized as eat the rich or a return to socialism or whatever.

The reason it is being characterized as eat the rich is because that is the way it's being portrayed. IOW, if we tax the rich all of our woes will be solved and everything will be back to normal. The only reason things are out of whack is those Bush tax cuts.

You need to listen to the leaders in your party and hear the eat the rich rhetoric.

I think the question isn't so much using the tax structure to reduce inequality, but the question of how to close the deficit in a way that doesn't INCREASE the gap between rich and poor. The Republican solutions in terms of cuts are almost all targeted at the poor and the middle class. The Democrats' solutions are primarily increased taxes on the very wealthy. I don't think either are attempts directly to either increase the gap or decrease it. I just think that there's an agreement that someone is going to have to forego something, and the GOP tends to see the poor and middle class as coddled and undeserving and don't see the fact that their policy would increase this gap as a problem. The Dems tend to see the gap as a problem and don't want to make it worse. I don't think the current proposals are as much an attempt to reduce inequality as they are an attempt to keep it from getting worse

What republican solutions are targeted at the poor and middle class?

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I actually wonder if republicans WOULD agree with it, actually. Or at least many liberals see Republicans as in fact in disagreement with it, and they may be simply cheering someone who is saying this basic and obvious thing that doesn't seem to be informing the discussion. If this is so obvious and clear to all republicans, it's hard for me to see how a 4% increase in marginal tax rates for one group or another is being characterized as eat the rich or a return to socialism or whatever.

I'd suggest Republicans are, in this case, viewing politics, like life and football, as a game of inches.. Giving up one inch makes holding the next inch more difficult.

Of course, politics is more then just a game of inches. Its a game of compromise, consensus building, etc. as well. The Republicans are taking a risk here in fighting for every inch and refusing to compromise, but I think its a calculated risk.

I think the question isn't so much using the tax structure to reduce inequality, but the question of how to close the deficit in a way that doesn't INCREASE the gap between rich and poor. The Republican solutions in terms of cuts are almost all targeted at the poor and the middle class. The Democrats' solutions are primarily increased taxes on the very wealthy. I don't think either are attempts directly to either increase the gap or decrease it. I just think that there's an agreement that someone is going to have to forego something, and the GOP tends to see the poor and middle class as coddled and undeserving and don't see the fact that their policy would increase this gap as a problem. The Dems tend to see the gap as a problem and don't want to make it worse. I don't think the current proposals are as much an attempt to reduce inequality as they are an attempt to keep it from getting worse.

The GOP don't see the poor or middle class as coddled. They do see that the less skin they have in the game, in terms of paying taxes, the more danger there is to the Republic. And I agree with that.

I do understand your point as well. And in the end, reluctantly, I agree that if we do need to raise taxes at this time, it should be exclusively on the rich. If it stays at a 4% marginal increase, I don't see that as a travesty at all. But I do always see a substantial risk, in terms of public perception as to how to solve problems, in raising taxes.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

Speaking of folks who don't know much about E Warren, include the staff of E Warren.

Then again, maybe they just thought that if she didn't hide the extra $128,000, people might think she was one of the hated overpaid rich.

Hopefully she knows that she didn't get this rich on her own.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

The reason it is being characterized as eat the rich is because that is the way it's being portrayed. IOW, if we tax the rich all of our woes will be solved and everything will be back to normal. The only reason things are out of whack is those Bush tax cuts.

You need to listen to the leaders in your party and hear the eat the rich rhetoric.

I have never heard the rhetoric. The only time i hear the rhetoric is when republicans talk about what they claim dems are saying. Sayhing that we need to return to a somewhat more progressive taxation policy is hardly the same as "eat the rich"

All of the republican solutions to the deficit are cuts that inordinately affect the poor and middle class.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I have never heard the rhetoric. The only time i hear the rhetoric is when republicans talk about what they claim dems are saying.

Where have you been? Listen to Michael Moore sometime.

All of the republican solutions to the deficit are cuts that inordinately affect the poor and middle class.

such as...