The rightwingers (which unfortunately are the dog that wags the tail of the Republican Party) continue to insist returning the tax rates for the richest among us back to what they were under Clinton (not more than double that they were under Eisenhower) will hurt the economy because it's the wealthy that create jobs.
But the facts show that actually more jobs were created under the tax rates for the wealthiest in the Clinton years than during the tax breaks for the rich under Bush/Cheney. In fact when taxes on corporations and the wealthiest were highest is when the economy was doing best and more jobs were created. When tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest increased under Reagan there was a recession, and when he increased the rates there was a recovery. Thus has it always been. Raise revenues by taxing the rich and the government, both federal and state, won't cut jobs so those jobholders can spend the little money they make on consuming goods and services that creates more demand and therefore the need for more workers etc.
Whereas cut taxes for the richest and for corporations just means a few of the wealthiest among us get to store up more funds for their progeny and take more expensive vacations in their private jets which keeps a handful of luxury jobs going while everyone else is out of work because regular folks don't have the cash to buy anything other than necessities.
Corporations and the wealthy are sitting on enough money right now that they could actually clear up the debt themselves and still be making profits and be richer than the rest of us. When I was coming up Republicans, even Reagan, were reasonable about the need for revenue during recessions to help create a recovery. But the rightwingers now controlling not just the Republican Party but a lot of the media and certainly very successful at framing the discussion about the economy can't be reasonable because their wealthy backers, like the Koch brothers, aren't, and the theorists and propagandists they pay for disallow it.
So their politicians take a stand against any raising of revenue from corporations or the wealthy, and put the burden on the working class including the loss of jobs that puts them in the unemployed and impoverished class. It's a win-win situation for them. The rich get richer, including their corporations, and the loss of working class jobs, even the higher paying ones, damages the economy which they hope will lead to Obama's defeat (Mitch McConnel made that clear from the moment Obama was elected), and make government look bad, which plays to their supposed anti-government message.
But like the Supreme Court ruling defending ultra-violent videos where Scalia writes that you can't really censor depictions of violence because that's protected by the First Amendment, but, he writes that you can censor sex, because somehow people taking pleasure in their own or one another's bodies is more damaging to kids than video games where women are graphically violently literally ripped apart with all the ensuing blood and etc.
[See Jon Stewart's take on this here, but you have to watch his bit to the end to get the full impact. and be prepared for violent imagery.]
Like that ruling, or Michelle Bachman's insistence that she was correct in stating that The Founding Fathers worked to and succeeded at eliminating slavery, even though the only Founding Father she could cite was the son of a Founding Father who was a little boy when the nation was founded, the right is incredibly good at defending their lies no matter how much evidence reality provides that they are wrong.
It's like Bush Junior being unable to answer the question when asked if he'd made any mistakes. They can't afford to allow themselves to acknowledge for a second that they're lying because then the whole house of cards collapses and their attempts to get and maintain power are fatally threatened.
[PS: Another late night post so not my most articulate, but I'm sure you get the point as it's been a common one on this blog.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
There really seems to be increasingly little hope of anything changing. A popular uprising, like the antiwar movement of the '60s and '70s might help change things---but that will probably never happen, what with the corporate-controlled media misinforming the citizenry at every turn. But maybe the internet will the way that reality escapes the distortions of the right, and some form of an "American Spring" will occur someday. Koch Bros beware!
Terence, one way the internet might help instigate some of what you and a lot of us hope for, our own "Arab Spring" of uprisings against the corporate control of our politicians and political system is through hackers like the one in this NY Times article today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/us/01orlando.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26
Economy ...
Since all the polls indicate that the economy is the main concern among the population and that all language seems to describe a 'crisis' with fiscal management that can lead this nation into a domino global disaster, doesn't that constitute a 'state of emergency'?
I really wish someone can help me with this question.
During my own experience when going through a foreclosure, nothing had more priority. The only difficulty in finding resolution was the bureaucracy and the laws in place that worked on a different schedule than the imminent problem.
Can't an executive order be mandated that calls for a state of emergency and 'shared sacrifice' from the population- including a tax hike for the wealthy. That way previous policy doesn't have to be repealed - only preempted by a different mandate.
Since national disasters usually transcend politics - and since everyone wants Obama to 'own' this economy, doesn't it seem like the only viable solution?
Otherwise, the din of this sort of rhetoric is going to continue to diffuse any progress or legislation until after 2012.
p.s.: the only exemption to this tax increase should be lower economic and jobless status individuals who should get credit for time served ...
Paul,
I know that liberals want to kill Constitutional US government. I just did not think it would come from you. Obama could become a Chavez, Castro or Stalin. How about liberalism. Rights and freedoms for me but not for thee.
"Can't an executive order be mandated that calls for a state of emergency and 'shared sacrifice' from the population- including a tax hike for the wealthy. That way previous policy doesn't have to be repealed - only preempted by a different mandate. "
I don't think freedom from paying your share of the tax burden is a constitutional right unless it was provided by wall street lobbyist pressure during a time when their corruption began the distressed economy and looked like a good idea to the special interests of the people in power at the time (Bush, etc).
None of the options I suggested are any more dictatorial or socialist than providing tax cuts for the wealthy or starting a ghost war on terrorism than the tactics of the previous administration.
The point remains that we are at crisis level that requires measure to break the status quo and gridlock in D.C. - and short of regurgitating the same old party line rhetoric, some new and drastic needs to occur for the benefit / sacrifice / responsibility of everyone. That sounds like a pretty democratic proposition.
This third world and historical socialist issue is becoming extremely redundant every time we reference an idea from one person (Obama) - I think its under-handedly bigotry and tacticly lame.
Anything fair is worthy of consideration.
Paul, I'm leaving the rightwinger's comment in because you answered it. But as almost all his comments it is based on lies. That "liberals want to kill Constituional US government" or that "Obama could become a Chavez, Castro or Stalin"—!—these kinds of raving libels should not be given the attention obviously sought since anyone with the brainpower of a third grader knows that centrist Democrat Obama would actually be imprisoned under Castro and executed under Stalin and ostracised and minimized under Chavez, and of course Obama is a Constitutional law professor as opposed to tea partyers who pretend to stand for the Constitution but obviously haven't the vaguest idea what the Constituion actually means. et-endlessly-cetera. But all this is meaningless. there is no argument that can change the mind of an ideologue fueled by the fears that neurological science is now confirming "conservatives" harbor much more so than "liberals" who see reality more clearly.
Michael, is there not a way you can simply block Jim from your comments from your blog? He does not deserve to be part of anything resembling sincerity or intelligence.
Michael or anyone ...
I'd still like someone to address the question from a few comments ago ...
Paul, you suggestion makes sense but is probably politically impossible just because of the attacks that would ensue on Obama for "raising taxes" etc. Plus it may not be viable Constitutionally since Congress controls the purse strings etc. Obama is doing the next best thing which is to call for the return of the pre-Bush tax rates for the wealthy and closing corporate tax loopholes etc. Another thing I think he could do is tax corporations that house their headquarters in a post office box "offshore" to avoid taxes. Make them pay. The only answer as every reasonable person, including top economists have said, is to raise revenues by returning the top rates to what they were and policing corporate taxing better as well as cutting the pentagon's budget and making wealthy seniors pay more into social security and putting the rest of the healthcare provisions into effect now instead of later or making medicare for everyone.
It's not fear Jim, it's intolerance of ignorance, hypocrisy and pre-judice. There's no time nor room for further damage done by you and your fellow non-thinkers.
Post a Comment