Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Rolling Stone: How The GOP Became the Party of the Rich


PeterMP

Recommended Posts

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

"Then something strange happened. Due to a "drafting error," the final bill failed to include the exception for the superwealthy. Everyone in both parties agreed that it had been a mistake. But instead of fixing the error, Republicans blocked a pro forma correction to the law – meaning that even the wealthiest estates would pay no taxes on the first $1 million. The move effectively secured an $880 million tax cut for the rich – one that Congress never intended, and never voted for. Ari Fleischer, the then-spokesman for Rep. Bill Archer of the House Ways and Means Committee, exulted over the undemocratic tax cut for the wealthy. "When a mistake works against the government and for the taxpayers," he explained, "we're in no rush to correct it."

I hadn't heard that before.

"Historically, Republican and Democratic administrations alike had met the financial burdens of war by raising taxes. But this was a new Republican Party, one determined to aid the rich even as it sent the military budget soaring. As House Majority Leader Tom DeLay would soon declare, "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.""

"The capital gains cut alone gave the top 400 taxpayers a bigger tax cut than all the Bush tax cuts combined."

"To mask such glaring inequality, Republicans inaugurated the tax cut with an across-the-board rebate. The waitress would get a $300 check, along with everyone else from Warren Buffett on down. But in reality, the tax cuts were backloaded with benefits for the wealthy. In the first year of the deal, the top one percent would pocket just seven percent of the tax cuts – but by the time the cuts were set to expire in 2010, the rich would be reaping more than half of the windfall. What's more, the cuts were nefariously designed so that small-business owners and upper-middle-class professionals – primarily those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 a year – would see as much as three-quarters of their tax break eroded by the Alternative Minimum Tax, a levy Congress originally intended to keep rich people from cheating on their taxes.

Every year since the Bush tax cuts were approved, Congress has passed a multibillion "patch" to prevent this politically potent group of professionals from being denied their tax breaks. But at the time, Cheney used the money "saved" by the AMT claw-back to finance another favor exclusively for the rich: a series of cuts to the estate tax culminating in a one-year abolition, set to take effect in 2010. Rejecting a less costly bargain proposed by Democrats that would have provided a permanent escape from estate taxes for all but the richest of the rich, Republicans instead demanded a more expensive plan catering to the wealthiest 0.25 percent of all estates."

There is some other good stuff I hadn't heard before.

Cheney and Norquist come out looking particularly bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with the White House, the Congressional House, and a filibusterproof lead in the Senate, the Democrats did absolutely nothing about it.

Rolling Stone will never be confused for an unbiased source.

Both sides are the Party of the Rich. One side just does a better job of denying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with the White House, the Congressional House, and a filibusterproof lead in the Senate, the Democrats did absolutely nothing about it.

Rolling Stone will never be confused for an unbiased source.

Both sides are the Party of the Rich. One side just does a better job of denying it.

This country is way worse off for it as a result.

Things are coming to a head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with the White House, the Congressional House, and a filibusterproof lead in the Senate, the Democrats did absolutely nothing about it.

Rolling Stone will never be confused for an unbiased source.

Both sides are the Party of the Rich. One side just does a better job of denying it.

Oh come on you aren't giving the democrats enough credit. They do more then deny it... they drag their feet a little. Maybe grumble in the elevator on their way up to the penthouse to get their marching orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rolling Stone used to be a great publication, born in the Haight in the 1960's, featuring great young voices and hellbent on challenging the status quo. I feel like they lost their way years back when they moved to New York. It really seemed to water down their product. I have a hard time taking any of their political articles (all are aimed against the GOP coincidentally) seriously. We have both parties feeding shamelessly at the trough but you'd never know it flipping thru their magazine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with the White House, the Congressional House, and a filibusterproof lead in the Senate, the Democrats did absolutely nothing about it.

Rolling Stone will never be confused for an unbiased source.

Both sides are the Party of the Rich. One side just does a better job of denying it.

Yep, they're both the same. After all "unanimously voting a certain way" and "failing to overcome the opposing Party's unanimous opposition" are clearly the same thing.

Just wondering.

Right now, we have like a dozen Republicans running for their Party's nomination to be President.

Seems like a relatively large sample size, And it would seem logical, that every one of them is tailoring their positions to fit with what they believe the Republican voters want.

Your opinion: How many of the current batch of Republican Presidential candidates have advocated the complete elimination of the capital gains tax?

----------

Meanwhile, a few years back, we had a rather large sampling of Democratic Presidential candidates, all vying to woo their Party.

How many of them, you suppose, advocated eliminating the capital gains tax? And how many advocated raising it?

----------

Seems, to me, that there seems to be just a bit of a difference between the agendas of the Parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with the White House, the Congressional House, and a filibusterproof lead in the Senate, the Democrats did absolutely nothing about it.

I always love this argument.

"Yes, I may have robbed a bank, but YOU were too much of a wuss to stop me from doing it, so you are equally responsible."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always love this argument.

"Yes, I may have robbed a bank, but YOU were too much of a wuss to stop me from doing it, so you are equally responsible."

To me, it reads more like "Hey, you're just as bad as the people I support, your side just doesn't brag about being evil".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry: Want or Do

Every year since the Bush tax cuts were approved, Congress has passed a multibillion "patch" to prevent this politically potent group of professionals from being denied their tax breaks.

Last I checked both sides have gone back and forth so what the "candidates" a year before the election want seems a red herring?

Is there a real reason this was done? other than the Rich get Richer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry: Want or Do

Every year since the Bush tax cuts were approved, Congress has passed a multibillion "patch" to prevent this politically potent group of professionals from being denied their tax breaks.

Last I checked both sides have gone back and forth so what the "candidates" a year before the election want seems a red herring?

Is there a real reason this was done? other than the Rich get Richer?

It's a valid point, about actions vs. words.

OTOH, take the Bush Tax Cuts for the top 1%.

Every time it comes up, the Democrats SAY that they're going to repeal the part of the tax cuts that only the top 5% get. (They'll keep the tax cuts that everybody gets. Just get rid of the "top 5% only" part.)

But, gee, there has never ever been a vote on that proposal. So we just can't see which Party wants it, and which Party doesn't.

Instead, every time it comes up, the only vote we're allowed to have, is "give the rich their special tax cut, or get rid of the rich's tax cut and everybody else's, too".

Seems to me, if both Parties are the same on this issue, then why fight so hard not to allow the two measures to be voted on separately? After all, if both Parties are the same, then the votes on both bills would be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, I don't know Larry. They could fight harder to insist both things get voted on. Not having to vote on it is an awfully easy way of not having to vote with the Republicans despite their words to the contrary. Personally I think, even if the individual politicians aren't, the parties themselves are in cahoots for the same goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to get in here quick to bask in a very rare moment while it lasts---at this point, even with an already-diverse and layered group of repsonses--I can proclaim everyone in the thread to mainly be correct!!!!

:pfft: :ols:

Don't worry, we can fix that right up ASAP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to get in here quick to bask in a very rare moment while it lasts---at this point, even with an already-diverse and layered group of repsonses--I can proclaim everyone in the thread to mainly be correct!!!!

:pfft: :ols:

9/11 was a conspiracy orchestrated by the Canadians, Obama was born in Muslimburgh, which is the capital of Allah-beki-beki-beki-stan, the real reason we invaded Iraq was to control their plentiful supply of hummus, vaccines are actually liquids filled with nanobots designed by the CIA to read minds, but only after they make those minds retarded, contrails are actually sprays of government chemicals designed to trick us into believing that clouds are real, and Justin Bieber really is the father.

:pfft:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been giving a lot of thought to how I would reform taxes lately and, frankly, it wouldn't be like the Democrats or the Republican are offering.

Even with a flatter code, the R's still support an unnatural incentive in the form of a capital gains tax rate that's below the personal income tax rate. (which Clinton signed into law)

On the other hand, Dems still support higher taxes to pay for incredibly wasteful spending and direct political oversight of major programs.

I talked to a guy who knows a thing or two about this, and there are solutions that I bet most here would agree with, but nobody's offering them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been giving a lot of thought to how I would reform taxes lately and, frankly, it wouldn't be like the Democrats or the Republican are offering.

Even with a flatter code, the R's still support an unnatural incentive in the form of a capital gains tax rate that's below the personal income tax rate. (which Clinton signed into law)

On the other hand, Dems still support higher taxes to pay for incredibly wasteful spending and direct political oversight of major programs.

I talked to a guy who knows a thing or two about this, and there are solutions that I bet most here would agree with, but nobody's offering them.

While back, I started a thread in which ES members could pick various deficit reduction strategies, based on a tool the NYT published, which calculated what various pieces of legislation would do to the deficit, both short term and long term.

The good news was that the people who participated came to consensus on several forms of deficit reduction ( for example, I think 66% agreed with raising the SS retirement age to 67) that would have cut he deficit in half, both short- and long-term.

(The bad news is that only like 12 people were willing to even enter into the discussion.)

----------

And I agree with you. I see no reason whatsoever why capital gains should be taxed any differently than any other form of income, other than class warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always love this argument.

"Yes, I may have robbed a bank, but YOU were too much of a wuss to stop me from doing it, so you are equally responsible."

And I've always loved the argument that "if I have the ability to stop something that I think is wrong, and I don't, you can't say I'm complicit in it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good news was that the people who participated came to consensus on several forms of deficit reduction ( for example, I think 66% agreed with raising the SS retirement age to 67) that would have cut he deficit in half, both short- and long-term.

(The bad news is that only like 12 people were willing to even enter into the discussion.)

Larry, why mess around. Remember Social Security is so rich in borrowed money from the chinese :ols: WHy not just raise the age to 80 and raise the salary limit to 150K for contributions.

I mean lets call the tax to the general fund what it is. Lets stop the borrowing nonsense.

We can call it a tax and just be done with it.

Lets stop the foolishness :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While back, I started a thread in which ES members could pick various deficit reduction strategies, based on a tool the NYT published, which calculated what various pieces of legislation would do to the deficit, both short term and long term.

The good news was that the people who participated came to consensus on several forms of deficit reduction ( for example, I think 66% agreed with raising the SS retirement age to 67) that would have cut he deficit in half, both short- and long-term.

(The bad news is that only like 12 people were willing to even enter into the discussion.)

Here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Cool little puzzle/tool/app.

Anyway, when it comes to revenue, I'd like to see more talk about closing loopholes. I see a lot of talk about reforming the entire tax code but I wonder how big of an impact simply closing loopholes would have. I believe something like 1500 millionaires in the US paid no income tax whatsoever because of loopholes. Reagan nailed it two decades ago.

Damn socialists.

(I'm about 97% stupid on this topic so hopefully I don't sound like an ass)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I'm pleased the nobody has come in here and claimed that growing income/wealth disparity isn't a problem, that post-1980 changes in our tax code haven't been a significant contributor to the problem, or that Republicans haven't been the primary pusher for those changes (not to suggest that the Democrats haven't contributed w/ an assist in terms of inaction/lack of push back, and an occasional vote for/signing (Clinton) of such policies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I'm pleased the nobody has come in here and claimed that growing income/wealth disparity isn't a problem, that post-1980 changes in our tax code haven't been a significant contributor to the problem, or that Republicans haven't been the primary pusher for those changes (not to suggest that the Democrats haven't contributed w/ an assist in terms of inaction/lack of push back, and an occasional vote for/signing (Clinton) of such policies).

personally, I dont have an issue with income inequality, as long as income isnt gained through Federal largess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...