-
Anyone Still Believe Me?
May 21, 2013 | 38 comments
-
What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want
May 14, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Mitt on Marriage
May 8, 2013 | 38 comments
-
The One Constant
May 1, 2013 | 118 comments
-
Trudeaus and Terrorism
April 22, 2013 | 15 comments
The Tax and Spend Spectator
Bill Kristol’s Bad Argument
Tax increases shouldn’t be decided on whether we like someone or not.
Five days after President Obama was re-elected, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol dropped this bombshell concerning tax increases on millionaires during an appearance on Fox News Sunday:
Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of them live in Hollywood? It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires. It really won’t, I don’t think. I don’t really understand why Republicans don’t take Obama’s offer.
Shortly after Kristol made his remarks, House Republicans appeared amenable to supporting a millionaires’ tax while Republicans Senators like Saxby Chambliss and Bob Corker are expressing second thoughts about Grover Norquist’s pledge not to increase taxes. It is now entirely conceivable the GOP could support the end of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
But let’s look at the essence of Kristol’s argument. He argues that we should support tax increases on millionaires because half of them voted Democratic. Well, a lot of people who aren’t millionaires also voted Democratic. By that logic, Kristol should support increasing their taxes as well.
As for Hollywood, it’s no skin off my nose if George Clooney has to pay more in income tax. But why are we determining tax policy based on whether we dislike someone for their profession or their politics? That’s straight out of President Obama’s playbook and Kristol shouldn’t be taking a page from it.
Simply put, Kristol’s argument for increasing taxes on millionaires is political, not economic, and the same can be said for President Obama. How often did we hear Obama say on the campaign trail that millionaires and billionaires were “getting tax breaks they don’t need”? (Who is Obama to decide what people need and don’t need, anyhow?) Or how often did we hear him say the wealthiest Americans “should pay a little more” to reduce our deficit? Of course, even if the wealthiest Americans paid 100% in taxes, it wouldn’t sustain the federal government for more than a few months. But what else can we expect of a President who did not reduce the deficit by a penny in his first term in office? Obama’s tax increase proposal for the wealthy is intended to be punitive and rests on a foundation of envy and resentment which he successfully mobilized during his re-election campaign. While it might make perfect political sense to raise taxes on the wealthy, it makes no economic sense to do so at this time.
Earlier this month, I attended The American Spectator’s 45th anniversary dinner in Washington, D.C. Amongst the guest speakers was oil and gas industrialist T. Boone Pickens. He stated that over the past decade he had paid $665 million in taxes. Pickens said if he had the opportunity to speak with President Obama he would ask him, “What is my fair share?”
In my socialist days, I used to think that if you imposed heavy taxes on the wealthy and on large corporations then all of our economic problems would be solved. Of course, I have come to realize that life is never that simple. All measures, great and small, have unintended consequences. Increase taxes on the wealthy too much and the wealthy move their money off shore. Increase taxes on large corporations too steeply and those extra costs get passed on to the consumer.
This isn’t to say I’m not open to persuasion on increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans. But I need more of an argument than the wealthy vote Democratic and live in Hollywood. Are these increased levies going to pay down the deficit or to pay for Obamacare and other programs? Let’s remember that last year the national debt exceeded 100% of our GDP. We must choose wisely but unfortunately government seldom does.
Are these levies going back to the Clinton era or are we headed for a 75% tax rate that is being put forward by new French President François Hollande? Or what about the 98% tax levied by the British in the late 1960s and early 1970s? After all, if taxes are increased to Clinton-era levels, what is to prevent Congress and the President from increasing these rates further? Given that our current economic growth rate is at less than 2%, how will these tax increases promote economic growth?
Until Bill Kristol puts forth a more satisfactory argument as to why Republicans should take Mr. Obama’s offer, the GOP would be wise to reject it.
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From The Tax and Spend Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/27/bill-kristols-bad-argument
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.27.12 @ 6:30AM
The Republicans who signed the Norquist Tax Pledge were not very bright in my opinion. Oh, it looks good in certain quarters buy why tie yourself down to anyone once elected? It doesn't make much sense.
The Republicans have a winning hand if they play it right.
First, they should not listen to the press or anyone remotely connected to the press. Their plan should be to limit government spending and stay away from the Kool Aide of higher taxes.
Higher taxes will not distinguish the Republicans unless they get something substantial in return.
So far, the Republicans have appeared to be bad negotiators not netting any cuts in spending during finalized negotiations with the Obama White House.
They should point out Obama himself has netted over 815 billion in increased revenues from the Bush tax cuts so he should be careful because he will be cutting revenues.
Unless the Democrats put forth a reasonable proposal the Republicans may only get a share of the blame and can rightly claim that the Democrats only have plans to spend and raise taxes.
They already missed an opportunity to get the ATM permanently deleted as a sign of good faith between the parties.
The Fiscal Cliff contains unseen dangers for both parties but there has never been a greater opportunity for Republicans to drive home their points. If they don't, they can simply drive home.
Jacob McCandles| 11.27.12 @ 11:47AM
I was just watching Fox News. The anchor was using the term "revenue" to describe tax increases. Almost everyone is talking as if tax increases will have a positive impact on revenues.
Rhoetus| 11.27.12 @ 8:34PM
The Democrats won the stylebook war on this one, every time I hear a [cough] journalist or news talking head speak as if raising tax [rates] equals an increase in revenue makes me want to mail excrement to him/her. Some people are too brainwashed to understand.
Rhoetus| 11.27.12 @ 10:28PM
Bill: It's not really about revenue, it's about control over private lives and private funds. The neo-con Republicans are too timid to call the progressives [sic] on their lie.
aware| 11.27.12 @ 6:35AM
Still arguing over the amount raised in the system of legal plunder. But never, NEVER, question the morality of the legal plunder system itself. Do you enjoy playing the game only on the 5 yards allowed at the Left goal post? Soon you will have only 2 yards.
I refuse to be part of any movement that has Kristolites, foot fetish degenerates like Dick Morris, and circle jerkers like talk radio gas bags. Yet this is what passes for "opposition" in this dumbed down nation of hyper-sensitive whiners. They all love the State because it has made them a fortune.
Jack in Wi| 11.27.12 @ 8:04AM
Kristol cares about only one thing spreading a worldwide revolution and nation building. We must have this huge military to do his bidding. But most of all we must have enough power to pull out his country, Israel, out of any scrapes it gets itself into. Well let the world and Israel carry their own water. Lets kick out Kristol and his pals out of the conservative movement once and for all. They have never been conservative and bring nothing to the table. They are the boat people of the murderous Trotskyite movement.
2Anglico| 11.27.12 @ 9:57AM
I bet you could join a discussion about Groundhog day and turn it into a rant about Israel, etc within 2 sentences, couldn't you, Jack?
Occam's Tool| 11.27.12 @ 3:35PM
What Obama (who admits 7th grade math is too hard for him) and others fail to admit is this: the tax revenue model is NOT static---raising taxes LOWERS receipts past a certain point just as lowering them past a certain point would also lower receipts. We KNOW that the tax lowering point is NOT 28%, because tax receipts went UP under Reagan when tax rates went DOWN.
The Dow Jones average gives a good idea why. It tripled under Reagan's 8 years after the Carter DECLINE. The max tax rate under Reagan was 28%, under Carter it was 70 %.
X=DJI under Carter.
Y=DJI under Reagan. (We will use DJI under carter and Reagan as a stand in for Gross Taxable Income; it's as good as any, I suppose).
Y=3X. (With me so far?)
Tax Receipts under Carter =0.7X=A
Tax Receipts under Reagan=.28Y=B.
Which is greater, A or B? The answer is B.
Taxation should be used to get the money that government requires. It should NEVER be used as an instrument of social levelling.
By the way, Jack, it's "Let's," "Well, let," and "thing: spreading."
To note HL Mencken, you remind me of "HARDING-SPEAK: H.L. Mencken was so enthralled by Harding's choice of words, which he thought was the worst English he'd ever heard, that he called it Gamalielese, after Harding's middle name. As Mencken wrote in his book "On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe," in 1956, "It reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights."'
JmsA| 11.29.12 @ 1:21AM
Common sense and sound calculations don't matter. It is all about politics, and that includes the fact that were they, the democrats, to adhere to the Reagan, or even the Kennedy model as it were, for increased revenue through lower taxes, such cuts against the grain of their ideological paradigm. Moreover, given the currently weak leadership in the House, and other built in advantages with the media, etc., such a strategy, I believe, causes the democrats/Obama little if any short or long term concern.
Rhoetus| 11.27.12 @ 8:37PM
Billy Kristol went to Harvard and is too worried about his career and public standing to take the risk of pointing out that the status quo of social welfare-warfare is bankrupting America and destroying our individual rights.
Nancy in NC| 11.27.12 @ 8:49AM
Not ONE of the Republicans in the primary made a good case for conservative thought. I wonder if they have read Bastiat. (Sometimes I wonder if any of them have read the Constitution.)
I heard Mike Pence speak at Hillsdale and he gas a grasp of conserrvative principles. I wonder if he has the guts to take a chance on relying on truth and taking a run in 2016,
The TRUTH is we have got so far away from the Constitution and conservative principles that anyone espousing those ideas will be attacked as a nut case. It will take some special qualities to overcome the media and the GOP and not be protrayed as another Ron Paul. Anyone with an open (conservative) mind knows that most of Paul's arguments are sound...he's just challenged in his presentation.
Marco Rubio can speak eloquently on conservative values, but I'm unsure if he really believes them, So many of those who enter politics are self serving and are fulfilling some inner demon rather than truly wanting to serve the country.
We need to pray for a statesman...with solid true conservative principles.
aware| 11.28.12 @ 6:28AM
If you are "conservative" because you want limited government or adherence to the Constitution, you are barking up the wrong tree. What we call "conservatism" doesn't go back to the founding nor even to New Deal days. In fact it does not even tie back to old Rightists like Nock who fully understood that Leviathan is the only real threat to life, liberty, and property.
No, "conservatism" as we have it started with Buckley and National(ist) Review in the mid 1950s. And it explicitly accepted big government with the concurrent trampling of liberty and shredding of the Constitution as acceptable in the pursuit of destroying the "Red Menace". Of course, that "Menace" was doomed just as Mises predicted in 1923 because of economic, not military, reasons. It was a theoretical impossibility that economic reality would eventually beat to pieces and sweep into the ash bin.
But even after that happened the Garrison State that the Buckleyites built morphed into the Surveillance State that is now morphing into the Police State. And "conservatism" is the biggest supporter of what Wilson called "War Socialism", born in the most tragic event of the bloody 20th century, WW1. Hence "conservatism"s" unquestioned support of the natural(and seemingly permanent) offspring to Wilson's scheme, the military/industrial complex.
"Conservatism" is flawed because it accepts without question State primacy in some areas while claiming to oppose it in others.
benny havens| 11.27.12 @ 7:04AM
If Speaker Boner leads the Republicans to higher taxes, Nancy Pelosi will be in charge the next go around.
OP4| 11.27.12 @ 8:15AM
If he raises taxes, it won't make any difference.
OP4| 11.27.12 @ 8:14AM
Kristol (and Ben Stein) is firmly in the HW Rino camp in my mind.
We overspend by almost $1.5 Trillion annually. The solution isn't raising taxes on small businesses and high-earners who are already over the hump of the Laffer Curve.
Stupid.
Rhoetus| 11.27.12 @ 8:39PM
Kristol is an intellectual wanna be and Stein is the very very last honest Liberal.
Indy| 11.27.12 @ 8:19AM
Bill Kristol, the genius who thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate and all is well in Egypt?
Kristol is a Neo-Statist, he's no conservative. As long as Boehner and McConnell are in leadership, conservatives will lose as will Americans. No spending will be cut. The winning hand was back in 2010 right after the gavel was handed to Boehner. It was then when they could have removed the stimulus spending from the baseline budget but it was never brought up...that's all I need to know about Boehner and the rest of the establishment, they have no spine to cut spending..."we are just 1/2 of 1/3 of government" meanwhile GSA, DHS, EPA and every other federal agency are out of control with spending and power grabs and what do we hear? zzzzzzzzz
Give me the Clinton Era spending and I'll give you the tax rates.
Seek| 11.27.12 @ 1:22PM
I have a very simple formula when it comes to foreign policy: Listen to what William Kristol says and then do the opposite.
Joellen| 11.27.12 @ 8:19AM
Bill Crystal is just one of the reasons why the GOP still doesnt get it, and if they continue to listen to the likes of Bill Crystal we will continue to lose presidential elections. BTW, wasn't it Crystal who endorsed Romney from the getgo, but then attacked Romney when Romney opined about the 47%?
Joellen| 11.27.12 @ 8:21AM
Sorry, should be Kristol.
Von Mises Jr| 11.27.12 @ 9:23AM
His arguments are like crystal. They shatter like glass under pressure.
OP4 also mentions Ben Stein. Kristol and Stein are the Republican version of Trust Fund Babies.
Herb Stein famously stated the obvious that "if something is unsustainable, it will stop." But apparently his kid didn't get the message.
This is why I don't even watch Fox except for the Business Shows like Lou Dobbs and Cavuto, and the Saturday Panel Shows.
Britt Hume and O'Really are another two milquetoast blowhards.
Our conservative TV media suck almost as much as our GOP RINO Establishment.
Rhoetus| 11.27.12 @ 8:47PM
Now we have the Blaze and Glenn Beck. But nothing tops reading and thinking for one's self. Which disqualifies left-liberals.
Maxwell| 11.27.12 @ 8:27AM
I give Krisltol as much attention as I do baseball. The last time I watched baseball was when Joe Black was pitching.
After the Jeb Bush garbage & now Kristol, A.S. is zip for two.
Nancy in NC| 11.27.12 @ 8:37AM
Kristol is an idiot and a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's the main reason I gave up on the Weekly Standard.
Remember when little Billy attacked Glenn Beck about the coming Islamic Caliphate? Does anyone imagine little Billy is falling on his sword over at the WS? I think not.
Seems to be little Billy is infected with white guilt syndrome or maybe he's just stupid. One thing for sure he's short on conservative values.
Martin kzovich| 11.27.12 @ 8:48AM
this entire thing about taxing the rich has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SOLVING OUR PROBLEMS AT ALL. WHEN SOME WHO CLAIMS TO BE A CONSERVATIVE GOES ALONG TO GET ALONG THEY LOST ME.
Jacob McCandles| 11.27.12 @ 11:52AM
How about we go along with Obama's plans to hasten the inevitable, and make sure he is identified as the cause. We are going to crash and burn if Republicans block tax increases and if they do not. So let's get this over with while BHO is at the helm, instead of delaying the collapse for the next unlucky sap who holds the office.
Rhoetus| 11.27.12 @ 8:53PM
It's about confiscation for the glory of the State. When was the last time government spending ever went down in real terms? Never! Stop feeding the monster.
Louis Jenkins| 11.27.12 @ 8:48AM
I watch and read Krystol to get the latest laughable argument. Strange that he gets a lot of press for saying the most stupid things. I'm with Maxwell on this one- 2 stories-one on Jeb and the other on Bill. One more strike and you're out.
Nancy in NC| 11.27.12 @ 8:51AM
The AS is warning of what's ahead. Don't shoot the messenger.
righthook38 | 11.27.12 @ 9:04AM
Very disappointed in Kristol lately...not the conservative I thought he was, I guess. Establishment Republicans are stupid. They're blaming the lost election on everything except the real reason. We did a horrible job articulating a conservative message, and we ran a moderate candidate. Period. If we allow an increase in taxes in exchange for entitlement cuts, I can guarantee you we will only get the tax increases. Democrats will not follow thru with their end of the bargain....that's how they work. If these Republicans haven't figured that out yet, there's no hope.
Kevin Brent | 11.27.12 @ 9:08AM
Bill Kristol should have his GOP membership revoked. The man's a RINO pig.
Joellen| 11.27.12 @ 9:19AM
Add Kristol to the list of Noonan, and those "republican" reporters, who like to hear themselves talk, who want to be liked by all, and who at every opportunity are the first ones to dis a true conservative republican. Have your difference of opinion, but try and remember President Reagan's 11th commandment "thou shall not speak ill of ANY REPUBLICAN", especially during an election. Kristol, Noonan, need to take a refresher's course in Ronald Reagan 101.
R Martin| 11.27.12 @ 9:20AM
Many commenters in these pages have expressed serious doubt that America as we know it can survive the political lurch to the left. There is good reason for their pessimism.
Our country is bankrupt—literally. The simplest definition of that term is the inability to pay one’s debts. An honest compilation of our liabilities leaves no doubt that we cannot repay them given the way our government and our economy are currently construed.
And what are we doing about it? We’re depending on the politicians who got us into this predicament to get us out of it. Hence the pessimism. In bankruptcy, one option is to reorganize the bankrupt in such a way as to allow him to work his way out of the debt. That option would work for the country, but it requires some hardship and a complete reversal in the way government thinks and operates. More...
R Martin| 11.27.12 @ 9:21AM
Most households work to some sort of budget. That budget always starts with disposable income and all spending is based on what is available to pay for it. Debt is used for major purchases but within the constraints that the debt can be serviced and repaid on a defined schedule. Government does the opposite. Government focuses on things to do (“programs”) always involving some expenditure, without regard for how to pay for those programs. When revenue (taxes) is insufficient to pay for all expenditures, debt is incurred. That’s how we got to where we are, and the problem is growing exponentially. Taxes can never be raised enough to satisfy the spending propensity of government.
Americans collectively (the government) must start thinking (and behaving) as individual Americans do. Start with the revenue available, and live within your means. And simplify the revenue side—reduce corporate taxes to zero (why double tax business income?) and maximize personal tax rates at 25% with no special classes of income. No new taxes either, e.g. V.A.T, carbon, gasoline, internet, death etc.
I know, it’s a starve the beast strategy, and that’s why the pessimism is likely to prevail.
Anthony| 11.27.12 @ 9:55AM
Proof positive that all of Washington and its supporting establishment, especially the media, are corrupt.
As the Al Pacino character said in Scent of a Woman, time to take a flame thrower to the place.
JP| 11.27.12 @ 9:55AM
The point of the tax inceases are not "millionaires". From a perspective of trillion dollar deficits, there just are not enough of them to go around. The real gold mine exists with those who earn between $120-$250 thousand dollars per year. But, don't worry. The Dems have their sights set on them as well. The first stage is the AMT. Coming soon, the VAT.
Class warefare knows no boundaries. Eventually, the class warriors eat their own (look at what occured in the USSR between 1920-1989). The millionaires have more options tax wise than anyone else. Just observe what Buffet and Gates accomplished. They greased enough wheels on Capitol Hill to get Congress to make a few changes in tax laws. And, Bingo! the Bill and Belinda Gates Foundation. This foundation protects nearly $120 billion of Buffet and Gates' cash assets. Talk about a tax haven. This is the Mother of All Tax Havens.
And for all of those Obama supporters who earn less than $100/year, don't think you will be immuned. Harry and Nacy know who you are, and they will get their tribute money. It's a racket, and the jokes are on you.
JimH| 11.27.12 @ 11:17AM
Note how guys like Gates and Buffett advocate increases in income tax rates. People at this level are well able to determine how much or how little of their wealth they want to show as annual income. If you truly want to test the sincerity of the mega rich try getting a wealth tax passed. Assess how much someone has above a certain level and take a slice of that.
Occam's Tool| 11.27.12 @ 3:42PM
I'd like a wealth tax of 1% per billion in wealth per year. Not that I think it would be useful in raising taxes, etc., it's just that it would shut up a few Billionaires.
By the way, I'm not really serious. But everytime those assholes, who have most of their assets shetered from income tax, talk about making my life more difficult, screw them.
Occam's Tool| 11.27.12 @ 3:43PM
Sorry, "sheltered." Buffett and Gates make my blood boil almost as much as Soros. 3 scumbags.
Rhoetus| 11.27.12 @ 8:59PM
I can't see any discernible difference between the three of them. Buffett reminds me of my Uncle Joe Stalin.
loulou| 11.27.12 @ 11:20AM
Why can't we tax Hollywood and the entertainment complex?
Seek| 11.27.12 @ 1:27PM
First, they already pay taxes, contrary to popular myth. Second, you miss the point of Aaron's article. Whether or not one "likes" certain people, it's a bad rationale for deciding to raise taxes on them.
I'm an enthusiastic moviegoer anyway. If anything, I want LOWER taxes on filmmakers, actors and other movie people -- and people generally.
Occam's Tool| 11.27.12 @ 3:38PM
Seek: from your mouth to G-d's ears, sir.
MTB| 11.27.12 @ 11:39AM
I've come to the conclusion that Bill Kristol and his ilk are horses' behinds. The problem with raising taxes on anyone is that democrats have proven, repeat, PROVEN, that they can't possibly get enough money to spend. The answer to our woes may be to increase taxes a bit to catch up economically, but no amount of tax increases will help unless and until Congress and our current White House occupant learns how to control their spending. Only then will we pull our behinds out of debt and have a real economic recovery.
Simon Templar| 11.27.12 @ 12:09PM
They should call their bluff. Give them everything they want in tax increases in exchange for serious entitlement reform, balance budget, and real spending cuts. It should be a deal dependent only on them actually making cuts and reforms in all the area we decide need reform and cuts, no promises. They should make a very big public announcement of this deal and a very large media campaign displaying this and using it as an opportunity to educate the real issues and expose them as lying, corrupt frauds they are.
This can be turned around and they can be lead into a trap rather than conservatives being railroaded and manipulated.
Simon Templar| 11.27.12 @ 12:11PM
This would be in line with what the majority of Americans supposedly want and would help to destroy the false image that we are obstructionist and throw the ball of blame and focus into their court.
Simon Templar| 11.27.12 @ 12:21PM
The way out of this is for the GOP to take the initiative and go on the offense, and do the proposing so as to control the narratives, and also be seen as moving the ball on the issue. Act like winners, not losers, do not let the Chief Fraud, propose anything first, beat him to the punch. Let them make the concessions by reacting to OUR proposals. Stop waiting for them to make the first move and control the narrative and the framing of the situation. Take the air out of their narratives and manipulative rhetoric by leading.
Simon Templar| 11.27.12 @ 12:23PM
You get rid of the obstructionist label by not being obstructionist and playing defense. You do not allow your opposition to put you in a defensive position.
Drunken Sailor| 11.27.12 @ 12:25PM
Simon, you make too much sense. Which is exactly why the GOP won't do it. They would have to betray their true colors and risk losing lobbyist money.
Not saying your wrong, just the opposite but I just don't see the GOP fighting very smart. They are like a bought off prize fighter. Just making the fight look good until it is time to take the dive.
Simon Templar| 11.27.12 @ 12:40PM
Thank you. Yes, the GOP will not be smart enough to do this, I agree. But the new House Block of Tea party conservatives could do it with big fanfare and push hard and create a new image and actually expose the RINO's and the Bohner deadbeats. Even if they fail to get Boner to come along, we successfully change the narrative and the image of obstructionism.
Simon Templar| 11.27.12 @ 12:45PM
This is actually a great opportunity in disguise, think about it and think outside the box about it. When you have continually failed in a particular fight over and over, you try something not just new but actually shocking. The shock of us accepting all of what they want for what we want will be too big too ignore and cover up by the media. You do the unexpected, the element of surprise is needed here. The class warfare bullshit loses all it steam.
Drunken Sailor| 11.27.12 @ 12:46PM
From your mouth (or fingers) to God's ear. If that were to happen I would take great joy in it.
Ralph Novy| 11.28.12 @ 1:09AM
Wow. This is utterly priceless.
A would-be crusader seems to be utterly in love with a drunken sailor.
But -- here's the ironic rub -- I'll just bet both of them are opposed to gay marriage.
LMAO.
Simon Templar| 11.27.12 @ 12:57PM
This really not a revenue or tax problem it is a spending crisis. We need to change the focus on this by taking their deceptive focus away from them by making it moot.
Seek| 11.27.12 @ 1:19PM
We need more Billy Crystal and less Bill Kristol. The latter sounds a lot like his late father, the unlamented Irving Kristol.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 11.27.12 @ 3:18PM
Here you go:
You...look...mahvelous...
Go Yankees!
(In Muhammad Ali voice:) Float like a butterfly...
Does that help?
Ralph Novy| 11.28.12 @ 1:06AM
"In my socialist days, I used to think that if you imposed heavy taxes on the wealthy and on large corporations then all of our economic problems would be solved."
Well, then, Aaron, you were a pretty stupid, half-assed "socialist." There's a lot more to it than that, son.
But I suppose you never did get to them levels of "economic sophistimication" that the 10th grade had, eh?
My word. How ignorant.
njcommuter| 12.8.12 @ 10:01PM
I would acccept a limited tax increase if it would hit an important Democrat constituency, so that it either would not pass or it would hurt the Donks.
For example, we could put a dollar cap, in the neighborhood of $100,000, on the sum of the home mortgage deduction and the deduction for state and local taxes. This would hit the limousine liberals and reduce the free ride that blue states get on red state taxpayers.