On "But We Promised!" says the GOP

Posted on July 31 at 9:10 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

1slippery1, I have no interest in killing the American Dream. In fact, I embrace it (I've been self-employed for 20 years, and yes, I cringe every time I pay self-employment taxes even though I understand the need for them). But raising the taxes on the upper bracket is not going to kill the American Dream. It has been 99 years since the personal income tax was introduced, and in 74 of those years, the rate for the highest bracket has been higher than it is now. And people still lived the American Dream.

Note: Of the 25 years when the top rate was at or below today's rate, 4 of those were the first four years we had a tax, when things were settling in and being adjusted; 7 of them were during the great depression in a situation similar to today's, with the richest 1% holding 40% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 93% experiencing a drop in income; 4 were during Bush senior's term--and he had to raise rates due to the recession; and the other 8 are the Bush tax cuts years (i.e., now). Historically, during the years when the highest tax group is paying lower taxes, our country has suffered (3 of those 4 times, we've either been in a recession or a depression) and taxes have, ultimately, had to be raised.

What's more, the American Dream has never died. There have always been American entrepreneurs, whether the top rate was today's 35% or the 1940's and 1950's 80%+ and 90%+ rates.

On "But We Promised!" says the GOP

Posted on July 30 at 11:43 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

I'm not an economist, but I know a bit of history. I'm certainly not suggesting that the rate for the top bracket go back to anything like what it used to be in the distant past (between 1932 and 1980, it never fell below 70%--there were more brackets then so the top bracket was composed of the extremely rich--and for 24 of those years, the top rate was in the 80+ and even 90+ percentiles, which seems...incredibly shocking). No one would suggest something drastic like that. But between 1993 and 2000, the top rate stayed at 39.6% and we were prosperous. So is 39.6% the right rate? I don't know. I'm not in possession of all the data and, as noted, I'm not an economist, but it certainly seemed to do the trick for quite a long time. It's not so far above the current 35% to be punitive, but a large enough increase that the country might see some relief. Cuts alone won't be enough.

On "But We Promised!" says the GOP

Posted on July 30 at 5:52 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

And I don't think anyone loves paying taxes or likes when they go up. I just think the end result is what we have to shoot for. That's the feel-good part. As for a fair amount, again, just end the Bush tax cuts. We were doing quite well until those went into effect.

On "But We Promised!" says the GOP

Posted on July 30 at 5:48 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

1slippery1, I'll admit that I phrased my comment badly. My point was that it takes more than a few people throwing in extra to make a difference. If we simply got rid of the Bush tax cuts, that would help us get back on our feet much more quickly. Those cuts should never have been made, they didn't create jobs and they took money out of our country right when we needed it most.

I'm a bit surprised at what sounded like your assumption that people only create businesses for the sake of money. I know plenty of creative people who create because a)they can, b)they love the thrill of doing something new, different and possibly useful and c)sure, money is nice. But a guy who invents something good enough will still have plenty of money once he contributes his part to keeping the country running properly. Taxes on the richest are at their lowest in decades, and amazingly enough, when they were higher, people invented things, started businesses and made lots of money from those businesses. What's more, they contributed something decent and good to the country by helping to keep the infrastructure (roads, bridges) in good shape, helped support social programs for those unable to fend for themselves, helped insure that the electrical grid didn't go down, supported our troops, our schools, medical research, helped keep our food safe, our rivers and air clean and helped support our veterans. Those are all admirable and necessary causes. I'm proud to do my part. I think that most people are proud of their contributions, too.

On "But We Promised!" says the GOP

Posted on July 30 at 2:41 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

poorrichard, the "50% of people pay no taxes" is a myth perpetuated for political reasons by those who want to make everyone but the rich appear to be deadbeats. The truth is that in 2009 (let me stress that we're talking about one year here), we suffered a terrible recession year, the ranks of the unemployed and poor swelled, there were temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 recovery act, by the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and an exclusion on the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits. So "for that year" with all the tax cuts, credits and such, many people "owed" no federal tax, BUT they did pay Social Security, Medicare payroll taxes and sales taxes, and if they owned homes they paid property taxes. Those temporary tax measures pertaining to 2009 expired, and now only about 14% of Americans pay no taxes (mostly elderly and disabled). The rest of the 86% of Americans do pay federal taxes, so could we please stop repeating this erroneous information that keeps circulating?

On "But We Promised!" says the GOP

Posted on July 30 at 12:18 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

1slippery1, having people give what they want? You can't be serious (if you want to see the deficit grow, yeah, do that). We are a country and we're supposed to work together, including paying our fair share. Right now, the rich have all the goodies, and you seem to be operating under the erroneous impression that a majority of the wealthy actually earned their money by the sweat of their brow. Much of that money has been given to them by Republican politicians through tax cuts and gifts of deductions they shouldn't even have. It has been hidden in shelters, it has been made by sending good paying jobs overseas where workers are being paid obscenely low amounts, essentially slave wages IMO (workers in parts of China make $80 a month/workers in Haiti make $5 a day or less), and some of their money has been taken from their employees by cutting pension and health care benefits (a lot of those people you criticize for not working worked all their lives only to have their companies cut off the pensions they had worked for and had been promised. Now those people are old and sick and they need help. Other people work multiple part-time jobs and receive no benefits. Still others are self-employed and barely making ends meet. To actually imply that those people are deadbeats is short-sighted). As for the rich (yes, back to them), no one is worth what some of these people take home. And the Republican party (which used to be a sane, moderate party with good ideas about how to help the country) has divided into two parts. The first and larger part is merely the mouthpiece of the rich. The second group consists of far right fanatics. Surely the Republican party can do better than this.

On "But We Promised!" says the GOP

Posted on July 29 at 10:40 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Sorry, but you're wrong (you must have been listening to Romney who made some erroneous claims). The deficit was already $1.2 trillion when Obama took office. Bush took us from a surplus all the way to $1.2 trillion under.

On "But We Promised!" says the GOP

Posted on July 29 at 2:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

The thing is...the Dems have conceded some issues. There are cuts they've said they would agree to. That's called compromise. So what have the Republicans compromised on? Not a thing. They're so set against raising taxes one penny on the richest of the rich that they're ready to throw the rest of us off the bridge. Why is it always the poor and middle class who have to give up everything while the rich get all the goodies, even though the gap between the rich and the working poor has been growing larger for a long time? We give them tax breaks on their corporate jets and their yachts, for crying out loud. Where's the Republican outrage about that? And every time you talk about having the rich help shoulder more of the burden, some Republican calls that punishing the job creators. Hah! The only jobs they create are overseas. Give them more money and they'll create more jobs overseas. They have their money and they don't care if everyone else starves. Meanwhile, the Republican congressmen all sit around panting and waiting for their rich corporate bosses to tell them how high to jump. They don't represent the people, unless those people have 6-figure salaries. (By the way, you're never going to balance the budget or get rid of the deficit by cuts alone. There has to increased income. That means getting rid of some of the Bush tax cuts on the richest. They're paying a lower rate than they paid under Ronald Reagan, and while Reagan wasn't my favorite president by a long shot, at least he knew that you had to have revenue).

On Wis. GOP bypasses Dems on collective bargaining

Posted on March 13 at 10:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Mudsill, Mussolini was a fascist, not a communist. Furthermore, your message was a bit confusing. Are you really implying that the people of Italy deserved someone like Mussolini or Hitler? Could there ever be any justification for those kinds of monsters?

But to get back to the topic at hand, unions have been responsible for reasonable work hours and safe conditions for workers. They have prevented workers from being at the mercy of unscrupulous owners more interested in the bottom line than the well being of their employees. To discount or belittle the importance of those accomplishments is simply naive.

On Wis. GOP bypasses Dems on collective bargaining

Posted on March 10 at 8:18 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

It is an attack on the middle class whether you belong to a union or not. A rising tide may lift all boats, but the converse is also true. Once you give corporations and the state free rein to do whatever they want to do, everyone's wages and benefits will fall. Why? Because there won't be anyone out there fighting the good fight to make sure the corporations have to toe the line. The Republicans have made it clear that their push to get rid of unions is really about getting rid of their competition so they can win in 2012, and if that happens, there will be almost no controls on corporate robber barons like Koch and his ilk. You think you're safe, but you're not.

Plus, once all those union workers start losing wages and benefits, they'll have less to spend to help support the rest of you. If there's less demand for whatever your field is, jobs will be lost and wages and benefits will fall. Don't think this has nothing to do with you, because it will eventually. Who will you cry to then if you didn't support your friends and neighbors now?