Or we restore rates to the time of Clinton, when we had a booming economy and a fucking surplus. Maybe you might have heard of that. No, friend, the deficit is pretty much entirely due to the Republicans’ tax cuts on the rich and to their useless wars.
Tax rates for the rich are at Clinton levels. Are you referring to restoring middle class tax rates to Clinton levels?
Is this where we once again have the discussion about whether family AGI between $250k and $450k is in fact “middle class”? Because rates for those households are still at Bush-era levels, not Clinton-era.
And that’s a very recent change, too, with no real chance yet for them to help the deficit to recover.
adaher, is there *any *Republican policy you’re willing to admit has been a failure? Is *anything *not the Democrats’ fault?
Politically, they are middle class, since the New York and California delegations are Democratic and have a LOT of constituents in that range.
You can argue that they aren’t, but Democrats are actually competitive among voters in that range. I’m sure they’d hate to lose those voters. Sure, those voters can afford to pay more, if they send their kid to a less awesome private school or own a smaller house.
The reason 250-450k is “middle class” is because they don’t have FU money. Many of them spend nearly every dime on things they deem essential. Tax them more, cost them thousands, they have to downgrade their lifestyle.
Supply side economics, tax cuts before spending cuts, stupid deregulation.
THe ideology isn’t the problem, it’s the execution. Clinton practiced a smart conservatism of welfare reform, free trade, deregulation, and spending cuts. It’s the difference between precision bombing and carpet bombing.
Cry me a fucking river. What they deem essential? What, like the pool in the back yard? The full-on bar in the man cave? The second car for little Muffy?
Listen, I currently I make about $60K a year. I just bought a house for about $130,000 – I’M spending every spare cent I have on things I deem are necessary, like the electric bill, and stuff to fix my toilet, and exterminators, and - for a true luxury - a brand new plastic bin to keep my recyclables in. If you quintupled my income, I guarantee you, I’d be buying all sorts of shit I don’t need.
There is nothing remotely middle class about 250k to 450K a year.
I make less than you and agree with you that that isn’t middle class. But politically, it’s become necessary to limit tax increases to those making over $250,000, and Chuck Schumer actually tried to make it as high as $1 million.
The days of taxing the middle, or even the upper class, are over.
No, they’re over for now, maybe. They’ll be back.
Well, which is it? Are the guiding philosophies of the current Republican party failures simply because of execution, or are they *inherently *mistaken?
Sure, if someone with something to lose advocates for them. The Democratic Party is very concerned about its branding as far as being the party of the middle class. It’s dripping from every part of their messaging, middle class, middle class, middle class.
And they’d rather include too many voters in that category rather than too few. given how close the electorate still is, who can blame them? Losing just five percentage points among voters making over $250,000 would cost them the next election.
Guys, from a political perspective, not talking about policy here, strictly politics. Where would you prefer Democrats to make the “middle class” cutoff? $100,000? $150,000?
The reason I ask is because just to raise taxes on the ultra rich required them to weather a full court press from the Republicans about them being tax raisers. It didn’t really work because they were only raising taxes on the top 1%. But in a close electorate, what happens if they try to raise taxes on the top 5%? Sounds like political suicide to me.
What fraction of the top 5% vote for Democrats? Like your white voter strategy, we can just make make that up by registering more blacks and latinos.
The top 5% do vote more Republican than Democrat, but Democrats are doing better among that group than in the past. If they lose that group by more, they lose elections.
Just as Republicans don’t have to win the minority vote. If Republicans consistently get 40% of the Latino vote, they’ll win almost every time. Likewise, Democrats can’t get murdered among wealthy voters. And they aren’t going to do better among black voters, because that demographic is already maxed out, with turnout rates exceeding white turnout.
It is quite interesting and somewhat disturbing to see the way some people treat the American ideal of representative government in such a wargame-like manner. It is similar to the way that football strategists might formulate their plans for the coming game. There is, of course, a significant difference between the two ventures or, at least, there should be.
If the New England Patriots lose, few if any people’s lives will be directly affected (except those who bet more on the game than they could lose.) In comparison, according to the partisans of both sides, the results of any election are very important. Important enough that the very laws that are used to govern the nation are directly affected, and by the application of those laws, many people’s lives are directly affected.
We are supposed to believe that the policies of the parties will direct their governance. When the policies are ignored in favor of merely gaming the system, then the electorate becomes disenfranchised even if they are allowed to vote. Treating this entire struggle as some kind of game is probably not in the best interests of the majority of Americans.
Or the top 10%?
Serious question. When we get down far enough that the fraction is 50%, or even 40%, that’s where to make the “middle class” cutoff.
But the more interesting questions are at, and/or about, the lower boundary of the middle class. (And the most interesting of those questions is, “Who speaks for those below that boundary, when it’s always the ‘middle class’ invoked in politics?”)
Well, median income is $45,000 or so. If you’re saying everyone above that is not middle class, you’re looking at a Reagan/Mondale landslide in 2016. There’s a reason Democrats promise not to raise taxes on the middle class anymore.
Another important difference is that public policy is not supposed to result from a contest in skill. It always will, but that’s a bug, not a feature. Neither football team is “right” or “wrong,” they’re just opponents; it’s purely a contest of skill. In politics, policymakers’ being right matters – a lot, and to everyone who is not a politician or even paying attention to the whole thing; and if two sides fundamentally disagree on something, then perhaps neither is right, but usually one is more nearly right than the other, and should prevail regardless of skill.
Turnout is calculated on eligible voters. Blacks and latinos have the lowest rates of registration, while the wealthy have the highest. We can register more reliable voters than you can. I would say our demographic has a lot more potential for growth than yours.
You’re also discounting the possibility that there are people in the top 5% who vote Democratic who support raising taxes on the top 5%. Many of the people who vote Democratic so so because they believe in using government to benefit society, even at the risk of some personal pain.