They Just Don’t Get It
By Chris | Thursday, August 14th, 2008 | PoliticsIn announcing Mark Warner as the Keynote Speaker for the Democratic National Convention yesterday, Barack Obama’s campaign manager had this to say about the reason for the choice:
“Barack Obama believes you can’t have a strong economy when you have a weak middle class . . . Millions of Americans are struggling to get by, forced to make impossible choices about their future and the future of their families. “
Unfortunately, the Obama-Warner solution to this problem is to grow government by raising taxes on the middle class that take more money out of the pocketbooks of working families, stifle economic growth, and discourage innovation and smart investment.
Obama and Warner might look like a good team on the stage in Denver, but the reality is that it will be working-class Americans who get stuck with the bill.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Chris Obenshain has been involved in Republican politics literally since the womb, when he attended Virginia's famous 1978 Convention in utero. 30 years later he still can't get politics out of his bloodstream. He currently works as a lawyer in southwest Virginia and serves as Chairman of the Roanoke Area Young Republicans chapter. As Old Zach, he helped found the blog Sic Semper Tyrannis in 2004 and has been blogging off and on ever since. He has also proudly served in the United States Army Reserve since 2002.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
26 Responses to "They Just Don’t Get It"
Unless your definition for “middle class” begins at an income of $250K/year and up, i’m not seeing anywhere in Obama’s plan that shows a tax increase. I suppose that if you repeat a falsehood often enough people may start to believe it.
To clarify, anyone making less than ~ $100K/year in wages will actually pay LESS income tax under Obama’s plan than under McCain’s. So exactly who will be taxing the middle class more?
I remember Bill Clinton’s middle class tax promises, too.
Let’s see…how did that end up?
Ah yes, because Obama will just be serving Bill’s third term, right?
What about that great speech that JR just posted, the one with Reagan railing against deficit spending? I seem to recall something about a deficit under Reagan…
yeah, and he hated it. He considered it a personal failure. He certainly didn’t have any Democratic friends in Congress to cut spending.
Brian,
As I remember it, Ronald Reagan cut taxes without cutting spending. Ronald Reagan provided the leadership necessary to increase spending while he provided the leadership to cut taxes.
Dick Cheney has been reported to say that Ronald Reagan proved deficit spending is not an issue.
Well, for me, deficit spending is an issue.
NO MORE. No more cutting taxes without cutting spending. NO MORE. No more deficit spending. We have seen enough of that and we have seen that it leads towards devastation.
Now, if you can get tax cuts through Congress that is accompanied by spending cuts? OK. But we need to see an end to tax cuts accompanied by spending increases.
While Democrats might be tax and spend, Republicans were borrow and spend. Please forgive me for leaning towards the Dems on this issue.
I’m waiting for the Democrats to cut spending other than military spending.
They have Congress. What are they doing?
Brian,
Did the Republicans cut spending back when they controlled Congress and the Oval Office?
It did not happen. The record is record deficits.
Curly: “I’m not seeing anywhere in Obama’s plan that shows a tax increase.”
Moe: “Open your eyes, ya’ lunkhead!”
[Moe smacks Curly on the head]
LD –
I agree with you. This is not a time for pointing fingers.
I just hope somebody up there in DC figures this out.
Reagan said that all the gold in Fort Knox was owned by foreign interests in his speech in 1964.
Today, it’s not just the gold, but even more assets of our federal government.
When the bonds begin to get cashed out, when other economies strengthen relative to ours, when foreign investors begin to even hint that there is a lack of confidence in the U.S., we’ll have MAJOR issues.
We need to not wait for that to happen. We need to take ourselves off the path of moving in that direction.
JR,
I think I agree with you somewhat.
The falling dollar has lead to increased American exports. Problem is that the export gain has been absorded by increased revenue outflow for crude oil brought about by the ever increasing demand for oil imports.
We have got to support efforts to break our addiction to oil.
This addiction will not be broken overnight, however every effort that supports this effort needs to be supported.
As long as we remain dependant on crude oil we are going to remain dependant on foreign sources for energy. This will happen even if we allow drilling in ANWR and offshore.
Long term, alterntive emergy must be part of our future. Even the short term is proving that this is true.
LittleDavid, Obama is proposing massive increases in government spending, but promising only the “rich” will pay for it.
If you want to lean to that, be my guest. You’ll be part of the problem.
1. Other than in GOP propaganda there is no planned increased tax on the middle class under Obama – in fact, the middle class will have SMALLER tax bill under Obama than McCain. If you want to pay more in taxes, that’s your choice – vote McCain in November.
2. The government increased government spending far more under W. Bush than under Clinton.
3. I’ll take Bill Clinton’s 3rd term over Bush’s 3rd any day. When Bill left office we had a budget surplus of $260,000,000,000, 22,000,000 jobs were created during his presidency and gas was $1 a gallon – Bush is leaving in his last year with another deficit, this time of over $500,000,000,000 (not including the deficits caused by the Iraq war, etc), only 5,000,000 jobs created during his presidency, and $4 gas.
Brian,
I have no problems with the rich being expected to pay more.
At least if I understand the fellah running past me in his Masserati is paying his taxes I will be less motivated to run his butt off into the ditch.
One cup of cream of Bill Clinton
Two tablespoons of extra-spicy Howard Dean
One pound of Obama
Four ounces of shredded Hillary
Withhold one galllon of John Edwards scandal (nothing to see here)
Sprinkle liberally *heh* with angry moonbats
After mixing gingerly, pour into a Pepsi Center and watch!
Best! Convention! Ever!
Ragnar, I am not a huge Bush fan myself, but it really is unfair to say we have spent more money under Bush than under Clinton. The federal budget is constantly expanding. When you have a Congress, whether it be Democrat or Republican, that is addicted to spending and automatic increases in spending, each successive president is going to spend more than the last president.
Then you have the war. While I agree with the war, many do not. But even without the war, more money would have been spent under W than under Clinton.
Let’s actually give the President the line item veto to check the Congress’ addictive spending habits. Don’t look for Obama to help here as he wants to spend more money.
As far as $4 gas. Maybe the other side should have listened to the idiot when he wanted to drill for oil 8 years ago. That would have reduced the price we are currently paying. But it’s W’s fault cos he is president and not the short-sighted Congress that can’t see past their own petty desires.
And there is the little matter of Congress saying it should be easy for people to get mortgages which helped lead to our current housing/foreclosure problem. Blame the banks if you want–they are partially to blame, but you should not leave the Congress blameless.
And it is the housing crisis and our response to it that has led to a weakened dollar which has led to higher gas prices.
But it is all W’s fault. Simply amazing!
First of all quit bringing in Clinton or Bush to any of the arguments. This is Obama vs McCain
Second, on tax policy Obama wins hands down unless you are in the top 1% of tax payers.
With Iraq pretty much wanting us out McCain has nothing to go on vs Obama.
I am still waiting for the ideas its getting really embarassing to remain a Republican
Geez, where do I start?
In general, deficit spending is definitely bad. Growing the size of government with that spending is generally bad. Government entities sometimes work harder getting uneeded budget increases than solving the problem they were created to solve. They also attempt to consolidate power with a common side effect being that they end up stifling the free market through taxation and regulation.
That said….sometimes spending….cough…..even deficit spending…. is a good idea short term. The problem is you have to restrain yourselves later. Thinking congress or a president can play Santa and then later the Grinch is unrealistic though. Especially near election time.
Under Reagan we inherited a Jimmy Carter travesty of an economy. In order to get out of that mess, unleashing the private and public sectors of the economy was paramount. That meant spending. That meant tax cuts. That meant deregulation.
Bush inherited a less dire but similar situation. No, the recession wasn’t Clinton’s fault eventhough it started under his watch. Restrained by a GOP congress and benefitting from Fed policy, Clinton was fairly decent. Still, there were obstacles and things needed to be coaxed along after 9/11. Bush’s first term was MASTERFUL!! I know…..the Dems are getting ill now but, it is still true.
Back to Reagan, he did prove something. Supply side economics does work. It is important not to overly restrain those that create jobs or innovate technological breakthroughs. To this day Reagan is one of my favorite modern day presidents.
As for Cheney and his saying Reagan proved deficit spending isn’t a problem…… he’s smarter than that. Like so many Republicans, Cheney was abusing Reagan’s name for his own selfish motives. Pathetic.
You heard me. Bush’s first term was masterful. Brilliant. Just what the doctor ordered. Unfortunately, the second term is a very bad nightmare. Part of the problem is that the congress was controlled by the GOP for too long. Republicans stopped being conservative and blatantly became “yes men” for the president. They sacrificed principles for favor, priviledge, and a party loyalty that was perverted in meaning by those at the top. They lost the will to stop the spending when balancing was called for. They warped a legitimate move into a Ponzi scheme.
In our current situation we are suffering from run away spending that far eclipsed the Clinton administration even if you don’t count war spending. We are endangered by our debt to China and other nations. A weaker dollar has some benefits but, we are at risk of having a crippled dollar and a wholesale and global divestiture of it for more stable currencies. We are endangered by an energy policy that favored oil & energy producer wealth over energy independence. The road to independence is to include drilling, offshore exploration,more refineries,nuclear, and yes…clean renewables. Let’s face it, Bush did nothing concrete to push for energy independence.
Lastly, Clinton with a Pelosi/Reid congress likely would have produced deficits every bit as horrendous. We human beings seem to have a difficult time when trusted with too much power.
Britt Howard,
Your post was interesting. But what do you think about this point?
Democrats are tax and spend. Democrats would not have wielded as large a scalpel in cutting taxes for the wealthy. Republicans have proven themselves to be borrow and spend.
I kinda liked the Republican idea of cutting taxes, but I expected spending cuts to go along with them. That was not the result. If we can not cut the spending, then raise the taxes back up.
Everybody wants everything and nobody wants to pay for it.
Most economists would say that Reagan’s tenure demonstrated that supply side economics does NOT work. Yes, it does provide an economic boost, but not as much as demand side, and never enough to cover the resulting reduction in revenue. Hence the need for paygo type systems.
As for Bush’s first term, by what metrics are you calling it “masterful”? Wages have consistently been outpaced by inflation, including median household income.
I do agree though that a powerful minority acting as a check on uni-party policy is a good thing.
“…Reagan’s tenure demonstrated that supply side economics does NOT work.”
Yes, clearly we should have stuck with the Carter plan, huh?
Watching the Democratic party resurrect the policies of the Carter administration is simply amazing.
Some people are just genetically incapable of learning anything.
Snoop, I’ll presume you were stoned for most of the 90′s like your namesake and missed that whole “economic growth” thing under Clinton. You know, that time when our national debt wasn’t skyrocketing.
LittleDavid, I agree with you to a point. Democrats are traditionally “Tax & Spend” and Republicans under Bush have become “Borrow & Spend”
Yes, Dems wouldn’t wield as big a scalpel, they would be piling taxes on. Unfortunately, new taxes discourage development, R&D, hiring new employees, and taking a chance on new ventures. During economic hard times that’s a bad thing. But you’re 100% right that spending needs to be reduced.
Jeremy,
I absolutely disagree with you and “most economists.” It DID work! Further, after Reagan’s tax cuts, tax revenue actually went UP! That’s fact. Why? Supply side works and your assertion that it doesn’t cover a resulting reduction of revenue is just inaccurate. Now when you couple tax reductions with horrific spending manias seen in the Bush years, you end up being owned by China, Gas prices sky rocket due to a weak dollar used to buy it, and the world looks to an alternative currency. Bad news, definitely.
Quote:”As for Bush’s first term, by what metrics are you calling it “masterful”? Wages have consistently been outpaced by inflation, including median household income. ”
Masterful because through accident or intent, Bush did exactly what we needed during his first term. Wage increase has been weak and partly due to a historically long run of LOW inflation. Inflation is only now starting to rear it’s ugly head. Clinton-Bush have been non inflationary. Greenspan had a lot to do with that.
There WAS a good deal of economic growth under Clinton. However, Clinton benefitted from Federal Reserve policy and was restrained by a GOP controlled congress. Since the GOP saw a DEM in the White House, they actually performed as fiscal conservatives. Gridlock is good. Not much gets done in gridlock but, our representatives can’t do much harm by the same token.
You hear the whispers. People are thinking Obama will win. It looks that way to me also. You know what? Republicans are already sounding a bit more fiscally conservative. Republicans are actually criticizing “Borrow & Spend” policies. That’s a good thing. Don’t get me wrong, I love conservative Democrats also. People like Rep. Owen Pickett, Del. Johnny Joannou, and Councilwoman Reba McClanan.
Uncontrolled spending and uncontrolled government growth is bad medicine.
Britt Howard,
I am tired of the free wheeling Republican ways.
Free wheeling ways that decreased taxes while they increased spending.
If the wealthy are not willing to pay increased taxes then let them go somewhere else! Where else do they have the hope of a citizenry that will allow them to live wealthy? If they think they know of somewhere better let them go there. If they are going to continue to live wealthy in my nation I expect them to pay the taxes.
Thelma Drake wants to increase my taxes by about 5 Grande to give the likes of Paris Hilton a tax cut. I’m screaming enough.
Tax numbers are remarkably manipulable to make an argument, depending on what factors you include or neglect (just look at the Heritage Foundations analysis vs the Tax Policy Centers). That said, Bush’s own Office of Tax Analysis released a 2003 study of the revenue affects of historical tax regulations, and the impact of Reagans massive 1981 ERTA supply-side tax cut was estimated to REDUCE tax revenues by 18.6% by year four (or a record 4.15% of GDP). The damage would have been even greater if the next 8 years hadn’t seen repeals of many of the provisions of ERTA. And thats before the 1985 inflation adjustments to stop “bracket creep”.
And if you don’t believe me about intention, here’s an excerpt from an op-ed last year by Bruce Bartlett, one of the main minds behind ERTA:
I’d suggest you read the whole article. While i don’t agree with all of it, he addresses where the modern “supply-side” argument has gone off the rails.
Jeremy Hinton,
At last some realistic speaking about tax cuts. To quote from your own quote of Bruce Bartlett:
“Studies of the 1964 tax cut showed that about a third of it was recouped, and we expected similar results.”
So less then a one for one increase in federal revenue was realized by the tax cuts?
Hey, I have no problem with cutting taxes as long as we cut the spending. If we can not cut the spending then we should not cut the taxes. Bullshit that every tax dollar cut equals another dollar of tax revenue.
Let me make it plain that I’m not really arguing intention. The quotes to me are meaningless. Although, it is correct that anyone can manipulate numbers, pull quotes, or conduct a “study” to conform to their bias.
Tax revenue went up. End of story. If you want to blame increased revenue on something else, so be it. One of the reasons revenue went up was due to a lower tax consequence of starting/operating new business. That increase in growth was then taxed and thereby contributing to gains in revenue. Tax reduction in addition to reducing costs of growth also discourages tax evasion. Those evil “rich” people provide jobs. Jobs we “common” people depend on. Sorry, I’m just not in favor of handing a mult-million dollar tax liability to the budget sheet of my employer. That being from Federal taxes, or local ‘Tool & Machine Taxes’.
The answer is to unleash the free market forces not cripple them. Irrational hatred of the wealthy for being wealthy only leads to preventing the job creators from creating jobs. If a person is greedy and abuses others then dislike and legal consequences are to be expected. Being wealthy in and of it self is not a crime.
Non-stop Overspending (as with Bush) having bad affects on the economy does not refute the idea that Supply side works. It merely means a big negative was mixed in with a positive economic force.
If Obama wins and inherits the Bush economy, do you want Obama to cripple the economic engine or engage in policy that will add responsible budget practices while allowing the market to recover? I don’t understand how draconian tax policies for the sake of partisanship fixes anything.
This is not your favorite football team vs. my favorite football team. This is real life. That said, the best way to achieve a victory to truly embarrass the other side is to do an honest job and fix the inherent problems. Success will speak for itself. I personally speak of the successes of Bush’s first term but, openly criticize the second term. I even use the words “Ponzi Scheme”.
I even will acknowledge the arrogant power hungry nature found in the formerly GOP controlled congress for what it was. But you know what? It reminded me of the Democrats that dominated congress years back.
Political Correctness, Moral Correctness, Patriotic Correctness, Party Loyalty, it is all a facade and excuse to dominate the individual citizenry and sometimes industry. Let’s remember that next time we go to “burn a witch at the stake.”
Leave your response