I’m not the first President to call for this idea that everybody has got to do their fair share. Some years ago, one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong. So this President gave another speech where he said it was “crazy” — that’s a quote — that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.
He thought that, in America, the wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so. I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days, but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we’re calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part. And if it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule.
Tags: elections, Making Teabaggers Crazier, Taxes
-
Call it whatever you or anyone wants and even though 0 is a Big Fan of ronnie-ray-gunne this will never happen. Then again look to what the rrg and buffit law has become just more of the same business as usual on ws wins and F*& Main Street well there is more room on to the race to the bottom for us little people.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-obamas-jobs-act-couldnt-suck-worse-20120409
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/10-10
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/04/05/jobs-act-gets-signed-today/
I wish I could find one other but I’ll look tomorrow
-
“even though 0 is a Big Fan of ronnie-ray-gunne”
Obama’s not a left wing POTUS. I accept that, but it’s not logical to equate that with “Reagan-love”. He’s tweaking rMoney and right winger’s noses with it. Pointing out how absurdly right wing the GOP “base” has become.
We could argue about “he’s better than rMoney” vs “voting for the lesser evil”, here, I suppose. I’d argue that Obama has learned while in office, and I’d cite as evidence the fact that he was a relatively inexperienced Senator as evidence, but I didn’t post this to start that discussion.
Notice that my post was about taxing the wealthy, not jobs, or how to create them.
I admit that I believe raising taxes on the wealthy will CREATE jobs. I allow that I’ve posted, recently, that “trickle down” doesn’t work and we’ve proven that with overwhelming evidence over the past 4 decades. But that admission doesn’t in any way defend, or even address, the “JOBS” act.
So, you’re throwing a bit of a straw man at me, here.
Are you arguing that raising taxes on the wealthy would hurt job creation in America? Please make that argument. I’d appreciate the opportunity to show how wrong it is.
Or, are you arguing that Obama and the Democrats lack the cojones to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire this time? I’d counter with “we can only wait and see”, but you’re welcome to make that argument.
I guess I’m not really understanding your response. I know that you, like so many who post here, don’t like Obama. I’ll even admit to not being able to understand why left-wingers would be upset that a center-right POTUS isn’t giving them everything they want. But I’ve yet to see a feasible plan to elect Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich to the POTUS, so I don’t give such complaints much weight in my thinking about it.
I like that the POTUS is making raising taxes on the 1% a campaign issue. EVEN IF it doesn’t happen, it puts it into the national conscience. I’d like to hear your argument about why THAT is a bad thing.
-
“Are you arguing that raising taxes on the wealthy would hurt job creation in America?”
Wasn’t that bull destroyed on the old tittieboard?
I think that the rw argument is that there is a need for the wealthy to be wealthier because it would translate into investment, and taxing the wealthy means they will have less money to invest.
I can remember pointing out, in those cash-strapped days, that:
1. There has never been a lack of capital for investment.
2. The wealthy are more prone to make money through speculation than by investing in a job-creating business.
3. The wealthy tend to park, or invest, their money wherever it will get the best return on investment – which, frankly, is rarely in the 1st world these days.Nowadays, with the wealthy (and corporations) are sitting on more cash than they’ve ever had, where’s the investment in job-creating businesses?
Consumers move the economy. In order to consume THEY need to have the cash to spend – and their spending is what makes jobs.
I’d say – 0% income tax for those who earn less than 50K, and back to the 70% maximum for those who make more than a million. Cut all loopholes.
“I like that the POTUS is making raising taxes on the 1% a campaign issue. EVEN IF it doesn’t happen, it puts it into the national conscience. I’d like to hear your argument about why THAT is a bad thing.”
I’m with you on that. It’s amazing that such a thing would even by questioned.
-
“Consumers move the economy. In order to consume THEY need to have the cash to spend – and their spending is what makes jobs.”
To me, that’s the central, inarguable fact that even the “I can’t possibly understand economics” faction CAN understand.
If there’s one thing about economics that people are likely to have heard before, it’s “supply and demand”.
Remove most or all of the demand, and there’s absolutely no need for the supply.
You can manufacture all the alarm clocks you want to, but if no one can afford to buy one you’ll go out of business.
Corps understand this, so they just lay people off and stop making alarm clocks when demand dries up. Which feeds the negative cycle. Demand for alarm clocks goes down even further, more people are laid off, etc.
Suddenly, the government decides to fix all the bridges our parents built for us and we’ve allowed to become rusting pieces of crap. People are hired to fix those bridges. Demand for alarm clocks goes back up. More people are hired by the alarm clock manufacturer, driving up demand even further, leading to more jobs and even more demand.
Corps/our country/capitalism can’t survive without government spending because unbridled capitalism is, necessarily, a losing proposition without it.
-
Yeah, except that the rules for supply and demand, with their related prices, no longer matter, since everything is so heavily manipulated that the supply/demand curves are inaccurate.
Let’s take the oil speculators, for example. They manipulate the oil futures so much that supply and demand really have nothing to do with the price. It is not fair. It is not right. It should be heavily regulated.
As I always say, regulate business, not people.
-
I agree with the regulation angle, but not that supply and demand is no longer in effect.
Without a strong middle class the US will fail.
However you feel about the US failing, it hinges on that fact. Destroy the middle class (like the GOP and Ron Paul want to do) and you destroy the US. Make the middle class larger and stronger and we can once again live as an affluent nation (no matter how you feel about that, too.)
I’d add that slowly defunding the MIC would go a long ways towards living in a once-again affluent nation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sis, working just under Pat Buchanan and Peggy Noonan, said that the flat tax of 16 percent was so totally reasonable. Now days, I tend to agree with her.
However, I still think those of a lower income should pay under what the top 1% of wealth pay. Honestly, I estimate that we pay one third total of our incomes to a government that hates us, resents us, and wishes to control us.My thinking of the ideal way to deal with this tax inequity, this lack of tax parity, is for all of us to file for extensions on income tax this year. That would certainly send a message, if the entire country did it. And I know there is a huge group of people who are going to do just that.
More and more power to them!!!
-
I am off the reagan topic, however…. It is somewhat related. Please forgive, Tim.
Several interesting Lawrence headlines today!:
Corporations drop memberships in ALEC, which has strong ties to Kansas Legislature
April 11, 2012
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/apr/11/corporations-drop-memberships-alec-which-has-stron/
Topeka — A handful of major corporations recently announced they have dropped their memberships in the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that promotes “model” legislation for conservative legislators and has strong ties to the Kansas Legislature.The decision by Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Intuit, Kraft and McDonald’s to leave ALEC comes as ALEC has been under fire from civil rights and government watchdog groups for pushing voter ID laws and the so-called “stand your ground” law that has been cited in the controversial slaying of a Florida teenager. In addition, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has said it will not award any more grants to ALEC.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we will continue to educate the public about ALEC’s agenda, and highlight the influence of corporate money in our state laws and public policies,” said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a citizens lobbying organization. The civil rights group ColorOfChange has also called on companies to separate from ALEC.
———————–
Kris Kobach used to work with Ashcroft in DC, at the DOD. He helped pen the Patriot Act. On voting for Kobach, Kansas is unbelievably STUPID!!
He is now our SOS, and is super-intersted in voter IDs, and the immigration issue, helping to pen the Arizona law on immigration. Kobach is a liar. I have been in his presence when he lied our city commission on city sanctions against the Patriot Act.Yet another headline:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/apr/11/koch-responds-criticism/
Koch responds to criticism
Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.timbuk3.com/discuss/wp-trackback.php?p=7929