Anything truly important can be paid for by all of us. If we only charge the rich for infrastructure improvements, then they actually did build that.
Then it’s a good thing no one is suggesting we only charge the rich.
Democrats have promised to not raise taxes on those making under $250,000/yr.
Liberals have not suggested lowering taxes on everyone else to zero. You said “if we only charge the rich…” – this isn’t true, and no one is advocating for it.
Words have meanings. My recommendation (and not nearly the first) is that you read your posts over and over before you hit “submit” to make sure that the things you say are true and can be supported with facts.
We need more money to do the infrastructure projects Democrats want. They will get that new money from the rich only. Therefore, the new infrastructure was built by the rich.
That’s not how money works. Everyone who pays taxes contributes to everything the government does.
If you discount the FICA portion of total federal tax load (since it’s outside the normal budget with SS loaning funds to the general budget through Treasury Bill purchase) the average federal tax rate for the lowest two quintiles of households is negative per the CBO for 2010 (published DEC 2013). The estimations they ran for 2013 changes in the tax code seem to point to continued negative average tax rates if you assume similar percentages of income paid in FICA taxes. For funds that go towards the general government budget instead of the Social Insurance program’s earmarked taxes, you would have to raise taxes to get the average rate to zero for the bottom 40% of households.
That’s still not only the rich paying taxes (the third and fourth quintiles pay along with likely a chunk of the second) but it’s disingenuous to not acknowledge net average tax rate exempting FICA for the bottom 40%. A good chunk of citizens aren’t paying right now and in fact take funds out of the kitty when they file taxes (even before considering government assistance programs which count as income in the CBO analysis not “negative taxes.”)
For federal income tax, maybe. But they still pay sales taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, and other taxes. Using only the federal income tax is disingenuous.
CBO analysis included all federal taxes. It includes excise taxes where the lowest quintile pays the highest average tax rate; they’re regressive. It also includes corporate taxes which, interestingly, runs at about the same average rate through the bottom three quintiles. It does not include any state or local tax loads.
I see what you are saying, but let’s break those down. First, you pick 1952 as a starting point because it gives the statistic a win off of the bat. Why don’t you start in 1940? Oh, because the stat would then suffer 3 immediate losses.
As said, 1960 and 2000 were razor-thin elections that should for these purposes be called ties. You can’t say that the electorate were on a “throw the bums out” binge.
In '68 the incumbent was eligible to run but did not and in '76 you had an incumbent who had resigned in disgrace. I think you have to toss those.
So, even using the cherry picked 1952 as a starting point, you are left with 52, 88, 92, and 08. Three of four.
Also, as was said, 92 was not the result of “throw the bums out” because Bush was the favorite until a charming southern governor named Bill Clinton came along. But for that, and a third party diluting his vote, he wins. In 2008, we had the first black candidate in history leading the ticket against a bitter old man that ran a terrible campaign. Doesn’t seem to be a result of a Bush backlash. If there was, it was his own failings in the Iraq war and the economy, not from a general disgust with the GOP.
And, 1952 was cherry picked and 1988 was on the coattails of a popular GOP President against probably the worst candidate in history (Dukakis).
So, in short, I don’t think you can draw ANY conclusions from this without evidence to suggest that in any of these elections there is evidentiary support for the electorate saying, “Hey, eight years is enough. Let’s switch sides.”
Of course everyone should pay for what the government does. Right now, that isn’t possible, because the poor don’t have the money. The Democrats are trying to help them get the money, so they can chip in too. The Republicans, on the other hand, prefer to widen the gap, so even more people will be unable to pay anything.
… and then complain about all the people not chipping in, which is used to justify pushing for more tax cuts, which further widens the gap … lather, rinse, repeat.
Taxes on the rich are higher than they’ve been in 30 years. I’m not sure how much more money you think you can squeeze before revenues just start going down. If there’s one reliable rule about politics, it’s that the higher tax rates go, the more loopholes the tax raisers will put in to shield themselves and their political allies.
Liz Warren will be no exception. She’ll vote to raise taxes on one hand and on the other put in new deductions and loopholes “for the sake of Massachusetts”.
*It’s another recurring ridiculous idea from the right. As if any reasonably competent, reasonably intelligent black candidate could easily get elected just by showing up and not making any major campaign screw ups.
*
JJandYiiiii, Are you even serious. Were you saying this tongue in cheek?
Obama had zero skills to list on his resume, other than a few weeks in the senate. Never even ran the proverbial ice cream stand as you’ve heard so many people say. Why ELSE did black people flock to him in droves like they do when Jackson, or Sharpton, or any other black professional rebel rouser runs their mouth.
Many lefties are quick to say we conservatives hate Obama and as for me that’s not true. I hate what he’s done to our country, the ideas he’s put in some children’s heads, and the severe problems he’s caused around the world of which ISIS is the worse. He can take credit for nearly allowing ISIS to be created right under his nose where it wouldn’t have been if he’d have had enough sense to listen to those around him that know more than he about what will happen if he pulls troops out of the middle east.
Well, what do you know, exactly what he was told would happen, happened. In just about every case, starting with his decision to have a “stimulus”, just about every decision he’s made has been the least advantageous for the country. He’s screwed up just about everything he’s had his hand in and the most asinine, bowing to other heads of state. He’s encourages Russia to make us look like fools. Obama is a joke on the world stage.
Both Obama and Carson might be black but there are miles of difference between the two. I understand why you don’t want a conservative black man to run against a liberal black man, that’s obvious since some black people are beginning to realize the democrats aren’t doing a darned thing for them. And I know that’s got you running scared. Bad scared. Cuts right in to the old power base doesn’t it!
More to come, Phu Cat
I don’t know that a Ben carson candidacy does that, but it’s clear that Democrats get very hostile at even the suggestion that Republicans might be courting minority voters. And apparently many think that if a minority is conservative, it’s a license to engage in the dirtiest racial slurs.
It would really help if you could use the “quote” function.
You mean a few years, right?
They didn’t. Black Democrats supported Hillary until Obama won Iowa by winning white Democrats.
All of this is wrong, but I’m sure your mind is made up. I think we’re more prosperous, and much stronger and safer. ISIS is no threat to America.
Wrong. And economic statistics prove you wrong – we’ve been growing for quite a while.
More wrongness, factually. America is much more popular around the world under Obama than it was under Bush.
Agreed – Obama is not a religious nutbar who doesn’t believe in scientific principles like evolution.
I’d love it if Carson ran! I really, really hope he runs for president. Nothing would do more to ensure the Democrats win 2016 than a guy who has never held office and believes in a literal interpretation of the bible as the Republican. Please, please run Ben!
LOL! Obama’s popularity among black Americans is still sky high.
I agree with those who say it’s way too early to tell (even as the election is only two years down the road). As to a Democratic landslide across the board in 1916, I’d say too early to call. Same for POTUS
I’m not predicting a world war or a Depression (God forbid!), but things to change. The country has itself changed a great deal in my lifetime but there are things about America that remain amazingly consistent, and one of them is the idea of the perennial front runner. the party favorite, who never makes it.
Examples: Henry Clay, William Jennings Bryan, Al Smith, Thomas Dewey, Adlai Stevenson; to a degree, Hubert Humphrey, who had a huge base within the Democratic party that didn’t translate into primary votes or enough votes in the general to win the top prize. Nelson Rockefeller also had a base of sorts, but too many negatives to win over the GOP “faithful”.
Bob Dole is another, as was, in 2000, Al Gore, whom I think it’s fair to say will never run for POTUS again. Yet look how close he came. Hillary may join these ranks. The Dems as a party are too cocky for their own good,–I say this as a Dem–as they think demographic change will put them in a position of dominance for generations to come. They know nothing of human nature, think in terms of a presumably sock solid ethnic lock on congress and the White House.
Where I live (Boston) there’s been a massive migration from South Asia, primarily Indian, into the area and region as a whole. I know many of them, Not a one of them is a liberal. They come here to make money, send their kids to college; and they know the streets are not paved with gold. Their work ethic is awesome. If they own their own business it’s commonly an eighteen hour a day six to seven days a week undertaking.
These people want nothing to do with the Rainbow Coalition and resent being called “people of color”. They don’t even like living in the city, move to woodsy suburbs as soon as they make money. Such people shall play a major role in the shaping of the GOP of the future, and while they may be social liberals in many cases I’ve yet to know a one who was an economic liberal. The times are a changin’ alright, but not in the direction many on the Left think.
On social liberalism, the left has won and will continue to win, at least where social liberalism means greater acceptance and permissiveness towards victimless behavior. However, everything else is up for grabs. It’s pretty clear that the US is also more laissez-faire than it was under the “glory days” of Democratic rule and I don’t see that trend changing either. People generally want to be able to do what they want as long as they aren’t directly hurting anyone and don’t have much patience for moralizers telling them how they must live a certain way for the “greater good”. These values are universal outside of religious or socialist fundamentalists and will not change just because our demographics change. It also seems that the GOP has won against the liberal moralizers who say that not only do people have an obligation to not hurt others, but they must also give over a large portion of their income to help others. Liberals’ ability to tax the middle class to pay for their projects has come to a screeching halt ever since the Reagan years. I don’t think they’ll ever be able to use the middle class as an ATM ever again. The rich are a different story, but there’s just not enough money there and their ambitions spend that money several times over.
I wouldn’t know about that-- When has there been any suggestion that the Republicans might be courting minority voters? If it happens, then we’ll see what the Democratic response is.
In 1998, someone could have asked, “Is there any reason to believe 2000 won’t be a landslide victory for the Democrats?”
Clinton was in his second term, the economy was better than today’s, and the Republicans had been thumped even worse in two straight presidential races in 1992 and 1996 than in 2008 and 2012 (in terms of electoral votes.)
Yet it often doesn’t turn out as thought.