One of the biggest problems we have today is a media that immediately cries "class warfare" whenever a politician points out what has been obvious all of the time- the economic problems that our nation is going through, though undoubtedly aided by three wars, has not been helped much by one tax cut after another to so-called "job creators" as we wait for them to actually create jobs.
The class warfare cry occured again last week when President Obama said it was time to cut the tax loopholes for billionaires and millionaires. Not only is it supposedly class warfare to suggest closing the loopholes at a time when programs that help people with far less money are on the chopping block, but it is enough to cause Republicans to walk away from deficit talks.
What kind of a country do we live in where it is class warfare to talk about eliminating ridiculous tax loopholes for the rich, but it is considered courageous to suggest major cuts to Medicare and Social Security?
In the accompanying video, today's weekly message, President Obama again makes the case for closing the tax loopholes, as well as making serious spending cuts.
11 comments:
the term "class warfare" may seem to be hyperbole, but by singling out "millionaires and bilionaires," the president is trying to appeal to the populist emotions. That's almost textbook class warfare. Hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners and oil companies are not going to help solve the debt crisis by paying more taxes -- even if they paid 100 percent of what they make. The corporate jet depreciation deduction was allowed by Obama's stimulus to stimulate the jet-makinmg industry. It was rational because the loss in tax revenue from those evil rich people was outweighed by the economic impact and jobs the jet-making industry enjoyed. If I remember correctly, the president was speaking negatively about people who fly around in their corporate jets, and then those people stopped flying corporate jets so much. Then the makers and servicers of corporate jets started to feel the impact, and a lot of "workers" lost jobs. That's why the stimulus included a break for people who own the planes -- to reinvigorate the jet industry and help the folks who work in it. And the oil companies. If they pay higher taxes, will the shareholders just agree to eat that extra cost? No. the tax will almost certainly impact all of us at the pump. Not everyone sees that, though, so the president is egaging in class warfare -- trying to rile up "the workers" against "the rich" even though any policy put in place to punish "the rich" for being successful will ultimately have a negative impact on "the workers."
Closing the tax loopholes on people who create jobs will not make a significant dent in the debt. Closing the tax loopholes on people who create jobs will not make a significant dent in the debt. Closing the tax loopholes on people who create jobs will not make a significant dent in the debt. Closing the tax loopholes on people who create jobs will not make a significant dent in the debt. No matter how many times people say that, there is still a misperception that rich people pay too little in taxes The president knows that increased taxes on wealthy job creators won't help solve the debt problem, but he still travels around the country saying "it's just not fair" because he knows the media will not call him on it and most people will not think completely through the consequences of taking more from the people who create jobs. Class Warfare in the media may seem like hyperbole, but so is "millionaires and billionaires" because the presidents proposals for tax increases WILL impact a lot of people who make much less than "millions and billions." Why don't more people get that these days? School economics courses changing?
It is class warfare, and it is effective because most people, like you in this article, stop listing and agree when someone says "millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share." You need to think through the impact those people have on the economy before you categorically agree that they should pay more taxes. What they do through charity, corporate spending, and personal spending has a much bigger impact on the economy and jobs than you could ever get by raising their taxes, right?
Calumny? Far from it. Please say you're not serious. Those first two people didn't say anything about any political party, and I think it's better for people to share ideas and debate topics like this without tying those ideas to a party. Both commanders make a good point. It's far better to have 100 millionaires buy planes than to have the government take their money to pay for unemployment and other welfare. If the government takes 10 percent from the wealth of 100 millionaires, the government only gets 10 million dollars. If that $100,000 per millionaire was the difference between her being able to afford a plane or not, then the government just put however many people it takes to build and service 100 planes out of work.
Political parties change over time (democrats supported slavery in the past), but ideas about liberty and limited government go way back to our country's founding. Those first two comments had nothing to do with the republican party, and to dismiss the idea outright is wrong and does nothing to help educate people about the way politicians use class to advance their political careers.
To Anon 10:11, that is baloney, you have bought into the Koch brothers et al. , philosophy hook line and sinker. The real difference is that millionaires and billionaires have the money to buy the influence to get the sweetheart tax breaks and loopholes. Warren Buffet himself said he pays a lower per cent of his income in taxes than his secretary does. You and I do not have the money to nor a way to lobby congress the way the wealthy do. I am sorry but I do not believe that unless we give the wealthy all the tax breaks in the world that they will quit spending money buying luxury items.
How many people in this country are as wealthy as the Kochs or the Buffets? 100? Take a billion from each of them and you are still trillions (1,000 billion) from making a dent in the debt.
So, are you saying that closing loop holes for the rich will not make a dent in the debt, so they are somehow entitled to use their influence and money with our elected officials to gain tax breaks. Is that what you are saying?
It you want to know who is engaged in "class warfare" ask what income groups the Republican cuts in spending fall on. You'll see quickly what class warfare means.
If you want to know who is enaged in class warfare, ask the same thing about the Ryan plan. You'll quickly what class warfare means.
"School economics courses changing?"
I'm glad you asked. I'm curious which economists are suggesting that merely using spending cuts will solve the deficit problem. I don't know of any. Even the ones from former Republican administrations don't say it.
I also find this sudden Republican love for deficit reduction amusing.
2 unfunded wars = how much again?
Medicare Part D (unfunded) = what?
Bush tax cuts (during a war!) = what?
Dick Cheney's claim about deficits, what was that again?
The notion that we should return the governnment back over to the people who wrecked the economy, because suddenly they've learned not to spend, is laughable.
Part of what is amusing about this debate is the way "save jobs" and "lower the debt" are played off one another.
Spending cuts do not create jobs. They increase loss of jobs and create less overall demand in the economy, which drags on growth. Tax hikes can (but don't always) do the same thing.
So to suggest 'Obama isn't serious about jobs' because he wants to raise taxes but while at the same time calling for more spending cuts - as if this won't also drag on growth and not create any jobs and lose some in the process -- is either profoundly unserious or just a lot of hot air.
Either the government focuses on job growth or on the debt. Cutting spending and raising taxes helps the latter, not the former. But if you are going to attack the debt, ignoring jobs, then you do it in the most efficient way - and that, to just about every economist out there - means cuts and taxes.
If you want to focus on jobs, then you ignore the debt for now and come up with very different proposals.
You can't have it both ways.
Tax Loopholes and Tax credits should be looked at as expenditures by the federal government.
Clinton did it.
He balanced the budget and had a surplus the Republicans poured through like a mad woman shits.
He raised taxes on the wealthy.
His revamped form of welfare, making work mandatory, and limited benefits duration....that was a godsend.
He has said, "we know what to do, we've got the blueprint we just don't have people in Congress with the will to do it..."
The Republicans will self destruct.
Post a Comment