RSS Feed Menu
Continuing on the theme of identifying conservative intellectuals who are making arguments that show hope for the future of the movement, I’d like to turn the spotlight onto two recent pieces from Ramesh Ponnuru.
To his credit, Ponnuru has used his pulpit from National Review to argue against one of the most pernicious conservative talking points: that 47% of Americans ‘don’t pay taxes.’
Ponnuru shows that this “freeloader myth” ignores that many of those Americans do pay other taxes (just not Federal personal income tax) and that calls to increase tax rates on those Americans is effectively a call for greater taxes on the poor:
The 47 percent figure does not mean we are near a tipping point. Most of the people included in that figure do make financial contributions to the federal government, and there is no reason to think that nonpayment of income taxes is turning millions of Americans liberal. The bad news is that worrying too much about this number will lead conservatives down an intellectual and political dead end.
…
But conservatives should seek to remedy the problem by cutting benefits rather than by raising taxes in the hope it will make people more eager to cut benefits. To seek to raise taxes on poor and middle-class people would be a terrible mistake. The idea is bound to be unpopular. And it would alter the character of conservatism for the worse. A desire to cut taxes for people at all income levels, and to oppose tax increases at all income levels, was key to associating conservatism with the diffusion of opportunity in the Reagan years and after. Changed circumstances may demand a different approach than that of three decades ago. They do not compel conservatism to become a creed openly focused on helping one group at the expense of another, a kind of mirror image of egalitarian liberalism.
Ponnuru identifies that the real fear for conservatives is that 47% of America is getting the “free” benefits of a welfare state that they don’t even need to pay for. This is an ironic argument for conservatives to make because many members of that “47%” pay fewer taxes because of tax exemptions that Republicans have sought to help the poor.
Ponnuru doesn’t point out that the argument is ironic, but he does provide the details on why there are fewer federal income tax filers:
According to the Tax Policy Center, provisions of the tax code that exempt subsistence levels of income from income taxes — the standard deduction, personal exemption, and dependent exemption — are the reason for about half of the tax filers who owe no income tax. Another large group of filers pays no income tax because its members are elderly and benefit from such features of the code as the non-taxation of some Social Security benefits. The tax credit for children and the earned-income tax credit, an effort to boost the pay of low-income workers, wipe out income-tax liability for other taxpayers. Those credits are “refundable,” meaning that beneficiaries can get money on top of paying no income tax. Other provisions of the code account for the rest of the 47 percent: education credits, the non-taxationof welfare payments, itemized deductions, and so on.
Ponnuru has also written against the current Republican obsession with tighter money from the Federal Reserve. While he has written about this in National Review before his most recent essay on this subject has appeared in The New Republic in an essay co-authored with noted monetary economist David Beckworth:
Conservatives have countered liberal fiscal views by pointing to studies suggesting that other countries have cut their budgets while enjoying economic rebounds. But almost all of these success stories featured the accommodative monetary policy that today’s conservatives oppose. This was true of the much-celebrated case of Canada’s fiscal retrenchment in the latter half of the 1990s, and of the emergence of the budget surplus in the U.S. in the same period.
The conservative worry that monetary ease will get out of hand is also overwrought. For one thing, we now have better market indicators of future inflation than we had during the great inflation of the 1960s and 1970s. More important, monetary ease that takes the form of a nominal-spending target would constrain future inflation. The Fed should commit to return to the nominal-spending trendline of the Great Moderation, which requires both a few years of faster-than-5-percent catch-up growth now and then a slowdown to the normal rate.
The position Ponnuru and Beckworth take here would be a good one for conservatives to adopt. If monetary easing can off-set some of the pain from fiscal austerity, then it would make fiscal austerity more politically feasible and less likely to weaken the recovery.
Ponnuru also deserves a lot credit for being able to gain space at The Corner to debate and critique advocates of tighter money such as the widely-cited Amity Shlaes.
Crime Dog // Nov 23, 2011 at 1:38 am
The guy in the photo is n0t subsidizing the OWS protestors (70% of whom are employed) but rather the Tea Party (56% employment). Or more importantly, it’s the Blue States subsidizing Red States. The solution? A constitutional amendment stating that any state that receives more money than it sends to the federal government should have just one Senator.
Carney // Nov 23, 2011 at 12:17 pm
The Blue State – Red State thing ignores some important realities. MS and TX have conspicuous population subsets that vote very heavily LEFT and rely heavily on government benefits. Comparing states like that to OR and VT is as misleading as comparing UT and ID to CA and NY.
Crime Dog // Nov 23, 2011 at 4:49 pm
New York is about 65% white and Mississippi is about 60% white. California is under 60%. That’s not a huge difference, not nearly enough to make up for that fact Mississippi is sucking the Blue State teat dry. And that’s totally disregarding lily-white welfare states like Wyoming. And I was not including Texas in my comparison…unlike the rest of the Jefferson Davis states it pulls its weight.
jorae // Nov 24, 2011 at 4:37 pm
The only people I have ever known not to pay taxes make over $250,000…because they own a business and take or make up deductions. Are there any facts out there that shows the average ‘line 14 – before deductions’ compared to a zero balance due? We know GE on the corporate side…paid zero. I think the facts would put a whole new spin on the discussion.
The truth is more what we see on a sign…Made $3,000 … paid $300 … now that just isn’t right…How many on the collected, fall into that category?
more5600 // Nov 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm
The guy in the photo is Eric Erickson, his three jobs include CNN contributor, owner of RedState.com, and I assume prostitution.
LauraNo // Nov 23, 2011 at 3:27 pm
#3; Producer of libelous videos and #4; purveyor of lies, extraordinaire.
jorae // Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Yes, that is Mr. Erickson. I went to the site and a pop up to sign up for their morning news has his face right on it.
Sad, the republicans can tell a scam picture on OWS. Too good to be true…Republicans and the ‘quick solution’
nuser // Nov 24, 2011 at 9:15 pm
is that Erik Erikson?
jorae // Nov 25, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Erick Erickson is the editor of redstate.com. I’ve heard of Red State a wile back but didn’t realize how much power the website had. Salon.com is saying that Republicans are listening to Erick Erickson on how to deal with the debt ceiling
Red State’s Erick Erickson Creates Occupy Wall Street Alternative ‘We Are The 53 Percent’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/17/erick-erickson-gop-should-not-dismiss-occupy-protests/
To see his picture…
LOL…A snake oil salesman … lives his life in the ‘get rich quick’ ideology… works three jobs … basically from home. Decides to do a ‘back lash’ about people who work as slaves …
MaxFischer // Nov 23, 2011 at 2:12 am
No one can have an honest discussion of why only 53% pay income tax without also noting that the bottom 90% earn only 50% of the total income. As hard as it may be for the righties to understand, you can’t be taxed on what you don’t earn.
balconesfault // Nov 23, 2011 at 9:24 am
That’s been my argument. If we want the tax burden to be shared by more people – start to make changes to society to increase the wages of the working class. When our political process has tacitly been supporting the erosion in earning power of the American worker for decades, until the average CEO to worker pay ratio in America is 475:1 (compared to 22:1 in Great Britain, 12:1 in Germany, 11:1 in Japan) … well, no duh who is going to end up paying the bulk of the income taxes.
nepr // Nov 23, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Channeling the Gingding: Take a bath, get a raise!
Ray_Harwick // Nov 23, 2011 at 2:56 am
The guy in the photo is either a fraud or he’s from Texas and is just telling the truth about having 3 jobs.
Jim Hightower said you can go into any restaurant in Austin and ask any waiter, ‘Do you know that Gov. Perry created 100,000 jobs in this state?’ and they’ll say, ‘Yes. He did. I have THREE of them.’
Okay, this I don’t understand:
Citing this problem:
“The bad news is that worrying too much about this number [47% allegedly not paying taxes] will lead conservatives down an intellectual and political dead end.”
Ponnuru recommends this solution:
“But conservatives should seek to remedy the problem by cutting benefits rather than by raising taxes in the hope it will make people more eager to cut benefits.”
It just sounds cruel to me. Whether you raise taxes or cut benefits, it hits low wage earners like a freaking sledge hammer. How they would even find the will to live with either one of these approaches facing them would qualify them for sainthood. The *grinding* burden of having but meager benefits and then being told those will be cut, trimmed or eliminated. Christ!
Sorry. This doesn’t sound like a “Sign of Hope” at ALL! It’s inhumane!
Ray_Harwick // Nov 23, 2011 at 3:31 am
Of course, if we took Newt’s advice and put children back into the work force, they could compensate for those benefit cuts.
Kevin B // Nov 23, 2011 at 4:13 am
If children are part of the workforce, won’t they take jobs away from deserving Adult Americans?
And won’t the little tykes who aren’t pulling their own weight be counted in the unemployment numbers?
dafyd // Nov 23, 2011 at 10:01 am
Wait I have a 3, 4, and an 11 year old, how young is newt talking about? It’s time they start contributing, and I rather have little kids working our American jobs then those illegals that are, as Herman Cain said “killing Americans.
nepr // Nov 23, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Only if they’re actively looking work, instead of, you know, being a tyke (which is pretty hard work to start with; making all those new synaptic connections).
NRA Liberal // Nov 23, 2011 at 5:41 am
The guy in the photo is Erick “Erick Son of Erick” Erickson, proprietor of the well known Red State blog. His “three jobs” are, like, blogger, occasional TV talking head and hack writer. Not exactly taking on hours driving a forklift down at the plant after a long day emptying bedpans.
sweatyb // Nov 23, 2011 at 10:11 am
Seriously? That is so pathetic.
jdd_stl1 // Nov 23, 2011 at 12:25 pm
In case you want confirmation:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/10/05/the-occupy-wall-street-fools/
think4yourself // Nov 23, 2011 at 4:46 pm
@ Ray: “But conservatives should seek to remedy the problem by cutting benefits rather than by raising taxes in the hope it will make people more eager to cut benefits.”
I absolutely agree. This is still supply-side economics, which in the first “Signs of Hope” article the cited author debunked.
balconesfault // Nov 23, 2011 at 9:26 am
The bad news is that worrying too much about this number will lead conservatives down an intellectual and political dead end.
Certainly an intellectual dead end. That is where the conservative movement currently functions, and the GOP debates is like a docudrama designed to emphasize this point.
Reflection Ephemeral // Nov 23, 2011 at 9:54 am
“Changed circumstances may demand a different approach than that of three decades ago.”
That this truism counts as insightful and even courageous shows just how intellectually bankrupt American conservatism is.
balconesfault // Nov 23, 2011 at 10:11 am
+1
lilmanny // Nov 23, 2011 at 10:32 am
True, and hence this blog. And hence this blog’s unpopularity among Republicans.
This GOP that we have today is not a political party. It is a business plan. It’s gone a bit haywire of late, but it’s a business plan nonetheless.
While I like that there are things for us nerds to read, remember that none of the stuff above matters in the slightest to the candidates or the base. Sell anger, authenticity, and toughness. That’s pretty much it.
Frumplestiltskin // Nov 23, 2011 at 10:28 am
“But conservatives should seek to remedy the problem by cutting benefits rather than by raising taxes in the hope it will make people more eager to cut benefits.”
So take away the benefits of such things as early childhood education (they closed a very high quality public pre-school in my home district) will therefore make me more eager to cut more benefits, like get rid of public education entirely and put poor children to work as janitors in private businesses throughout the country. Hey, they will learn a trade and get paid. What can go wrong with that?
Stupidity is not a remedy for idiocy. Mindlessly chanting “cut benefits” is stupidity.
nepr // Nov 23, 2011 at 5:01 pm
I think that quote is at odds, both in tone and substance, with the rest of Mr Ponnuru’s otherwise excellent post. I wonder how much thought he put into it.
I think the “problem” he’s trying to “remedy” is conservatives/Republicans targeting people who are getting benefits that they don’t have to pay for.
Since he has already, in the same post, expertly debunked the notion that this situation will cause people to demand more benefits, the “problem” reduces to how to decrease the social harm that comes from people getting something for nothing. His “solution”, since he has shown that targeted taxing is unfair, unpopular, unnecessary, and against conservative principles, is to “starve the beast”, e.g., focus on reducing the aggregate level of benefits, thereby reducing the aggregate level of waste and mis-allocation of resources. Put another way, if the government pie is smaller, the government generated harm is smaller, including the “harm” of people getting benefits that they don’t have to pay for.
It seems to me that sensible conservatives (I’m not a conservative) put a high value on, whenever possible, making sure that tax (benefit) increases (decreases) apply equally to all segments of society. That, in fact, seems to me to be the whole purpose of Mr Ponnuru’s post: e.g., that conservatives are off topic when they single out any demographic segment of society for any special treatment, good or bad.
Also, in my view, in the quoted passage, Mr Ponnuru provides a tacit admission of how vague and blunt the instruments are for implementing the conservative agenda.
Houndentenor // Nov 23, 2011 at 11:01 am
So what is the solution to the problem that so many don’t pay income taxes? Raise taxes on retirees and the working poor? This is just another typical right-wing talking point that only works if you don’t actually think about it.
ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2011 at 11:19 am
A relatively obscure journalist writing in a magazine with a tiny circulation gives elite conservatives a reality check on why 47% of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes. I’m afraid Noah is seeing rainbows where none exist. I suppose that if you believe in the theory that a butterfly sneezing in Cambodia can cause a hurricane on the American east coast there might be some cause for optimism about a new Republican urge to embrace reality but otherwise I think not. Neither Ponnuru or Noah yet seem to understand what the Republican party is about. And btw apropos the NGDP debate, Shlaes is technically correct as Ponnuru actually concedes athough he says it won’t happen often and it’s no big deal. A committment to a nominal GDP target inevitably means a considerable amount of inflation.
Traveler // Nov 23, 2011 at 11:35 am
I drop kicked in Part 2 saying this was reasonable, as I overlooked the operative phrase of ” But conservatives should seek to remedy the problem by cutting benefits rather than by raising taxes in the hope it will make people more eager to cut benefits.”
Unreasonable, alas. Ponnuru posts regularly on Bloomberg, as mostly drivel, so I thought we actually saw a sea change happening with this article. But at least the tax discussion is a start. The comments section was frightening though.
ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2011 at 12:31 pm
‘The comments section was frightening though.”
The comments section is the compelling evidence that in fact there is absolutely no sign of hope!!!!
Traveler // Nov 23, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Too true…All we can hope for is that these cretins get outvoted. If MSM had a spine, it sure would help.
nepr // Nov 23, 2011 at 5:09 pm
My major complaint with Mr P’s mostly excellent post is its pseudo academic tone; as if he was writing for a bunch of Bill Buckleys (or David Frums!). I kept hoping I’d get to the part where he’d ask his readers take their meds, calm down, and think, and not to worry about the resulting, temporary, dizziness. But it never came.
icarusr // Nov 23, 2011 at 11:19 am
“This was true of the much-celebrated case of Canada’s fiscal retrenchment in the latter half of the 1990s,”
Well, the “fiscal retrenchment” also included massive hikes in all taxes and contributions (tax surcharges on all incomes earned above C$50 K, near doubling of Unemployment Insurance premiums and the like) and by maintaining a much-hated national goods and services. That is, while there were across the board cuts to government services and programs, these were supplemented by higher revenues at all levels, plus a highly progressive tax-regime, especially at the provincial (state) level.
No discussion of the Canadian miracle of the 90s is credible, in the least, without a serious discussion of the social compact underlying the sacrifices we all made to make it happen. And we still have a “socialist” single-payer health care system; progressive taxation (that the current Conservative finance minister has held up as something to be proud of); a generous social safety net; and massive transfers to poorer regions to help ensure a reasonable standard of living and public services across the country. Finally, the “fiscal retrenchment” was not accompanied by a war on unions or our regulatory or environmental protection framework.
jdd_stl1 // Nov 23, 2011 at 11:22 am
“But conservatives should seek to remedy the problem by cutting benefits rather than by raising taxes in the hope it will make people more eager to cut benefits. To seek to raise taxes on poor and middle-class people would be a terrible mistake. ”
This is ridiculous. What is really the difference between cutting the benefits of
the poor and taxing them more? The bottom line is the same. Does it feel
better to the compassionate conservative’s conscious?
I will take it as a sign of hope when someone on the conservative side says
something to this effect:
“You know, things weren’t so bad in 2000. We had a balanced or close to balanced
budget and the economy was in good shape. To get our ship back on course,
lets go back to the tax policies of 2000, continue to end the wars we are involved
in and then start looking at ways we can tackle the two biggest issues that worry
people today: Social Security and Health care cost. Notice that I didn’t say
the ACA, or Medicare or Medicaid. I said Health Care costs. And on Social Security,
you know, contrary to what you have been hearing there isn’t a huge problem. We
are in a period where things are slightly out of balance and with some small
adjustments we can get things back on track. But to do this, My Fellow Americans,
I may have to ask for some sacrifices from a lot of you. But we are a resilient
people and we can weather this storm together. Because we look out for one another.
We are willing to pitch in to help each other.”
That is what I want to hear from someone.
Has anyone been saying something like that?
sweatyb // Nov 23, 2011 at 11:57 am
Only the current occupant of the White House.
think4yourself // Nov 23, 2011 at 4:51 pm
JDD – I would listen to that candidate. I wouldn’t necessarily vote for that person because as Sweaty noted, the closest thing to someone saying that is the current occupant of the WH.
Southern Populist // Nov 23, 2011 at 11:55 am
National Review has not been relevant for a long time. Their best writers died long ago, and William F. Buckley Jr. fired the remaining good ones in the 90s. Buckley lost all credibility on the thinking Right when he fired John O’Sullivan, accused Pat Buchanan and Gore Vidal of anti-Semitism for criticizing Israel, and then later quit publishing Joe Sobran.
[blockquote]I thought hell is bound to be a livelier place, as he joins forever those whom he served in life, applauding their prejudices and fanning their hatred.
- Gore Vidal in response to the question, “How did you feel when you heard that Buckley died this year?” [/blockquote]
Crime Dog // Nov 23, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite.
jamesj // Nov 23, 2011 at 12:17 pm
“The bad news is that worrying too much about this number will lead conservatives down an intellectual and political dead end.”
We’re already there. We’ve hit the dead end. It is good to know that a few voices like Ponnuru still howl in the lonely wilderness, but the vast majority of right wing voters are not interested in what he has to say. They are not interested in re-evaluating their opinions at all. They are quite comfortable getting their fears massaged by irresponsible right wing commentators and politicians. Erick Erickson is the new mean average for Conservative political thought. It is sad we’ve come to this.
Even folks like Ponnuru sometimes refuse to take their thinking to the logical conclusion. For instance, should we even be debating the best way to implement austerity measures from the depth of this recession? No, obviously not. But here we are, barely even questioning it among right wing pundits and voters. When Ponnuru suggests that cutting benefits is a better way to implement austerity than raising taxes on the poor, doesn’t he have a greater responsibility to mention the fact that austerity during a demand recession is a recipe for disaster by any reasonable analysis?
LFC // Nov 23, 2011 at 1:16 pm
After reading David’s well written articles on the GOP’s problems and then following the “signs of hope” posts, I catch a heavy whiff of desperation here at FF. I see little but grasping at tiny little straws.
I think David is approaching the cusp of actually giving up on the GOP (like so many of us commenting here have already done) and voting for Obama, but his tribalism is still fighting back hard. When I starting giving up on the GOP, I had been a Republican from ages 18-31 and had never been active in the party. That’s a much easier set of baggage to jettison than the amount that David is hauling.
armstp // Nov 23, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Noah,
Another element for to the “47% who do not pay federal income taxes” myth is that the 47% number was from a study for the 2009 tax year. It therefore does not at all represent a normalized number.
In 2009, there was a significant number of tax deductions from things in the stimulus bill and from other things like cash for clunkers and also incomes were down in that year, moving many into a lower tax bracket, so the 47% in 2009 was artificially high.
If you go back to 2007, which was a more normalized year, you can find studies that say only about 35% of households did not pay federal income taxes. The 35% is about the historic normalized number.
To say 47% is kind of an exaggeration.
Now we know the 35% or 47% pay all kinds of taxes; payroll taxes, consumption taxes. They pay about +50% of the taxes that every other household does. They just don’t pay federal income taxes because there taxes are so low or because of tax deductions.
What about all those corporations that pay no taxes? Where is the outrage? Aren’t corporations citizens too?
jdd_stl1 // Nov 23, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Is Bruce Bartlett still considered a conservative.
I find myself reading his Economix blog entries and find them full
of reason. Maybe he is one of my reasons for hope.
Here is one of his on the topic of who doesn’t pay federal income tax:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/
This has current year numbers.
I wonder what the minimum taxes should be on those 3000 taxpayers who
had incomes over $2.1M and did not pay any federal income taxes?
How does Erick Erickson feel about subsidizing them?
jdd_stl1 // Nov 23, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Here is today’s entry from Bruce Bartlett in his capitalgainsandgames.com blog.
Basically, if gridlock continues, our problems are solved:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2424/do-nothing-solution-americas-fiscal-crisis
jdd_stl1 // Nov 23, 2011 at 2:42 pm
And here is his 2009 Daily Beast piece where he rips Bush to shreds.
If conservatives could start from this point, admitting the huge mistakes
of the Bush years, then maybe there would be hope.
he closes with:
“Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting.”
Ok. I’m done for now. This “Hope” thing really irritated me and
got me going.
mlindroo // Nov 23, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Ramesh Ponnuru is indeed a feeble, rare point of light shining in the vast intellectual darkness of the NRO universe. But if you regard his column as a sign of hope, read the NRO reader reactions and weep…
MARCU$
think4yourself // Nov 23, 2011 at 5:39 pm
I don’t really see Signs of Hope for Conservatives here.
Ponnuru is arguing that Conservatives shouldn’t complain about the 47% who didn’t pay Federal income taxes, nor should they cut benefits. Instead they should lower taxes.
Why not call it Supply Side Economics?
Never mind that tax burdens are at the lowest levels in two generations. Never mind that lowering tax revenues without lowering expenses (benefits) will lead to greater deficits.
This is Conservative thought?
I much prefer Bruce Bartlett’s column (thanks jdd and others) that shows just by allowing existing legislation to happen, we’ll save or create 6 Trillion additional. All of which gets enacted in late 2012, 2013 or later (the recession should have futher easing by then).
I’d really like to hear a politician (from either party) say:
“Everyone should pay some Federal income tax – it’s the benefit of living in America, you have the opportunity to contribute no matter how rich or poor you are.”
“Also, what the country is paying out is greater than what it takes in. Therefore we will need to make some necessary but painful cuts and will try to spread the pain around as equally as possible.”
Lastly, “if you make your money on capital gains, you ought to pay the same percentage tax as those who make it from wages, and if you are a corporation, you will pay taxes as well.”
heap // Nov 23, 2011 at 8:15 pm
when it comes to looking for signs of hope within the GOP – what happens when you scrape through the bottom of the barrel?
jdd_stl1 // Nov 23, 2011 at 10:58 pm
The barrel leaks and we get that scum all over the bottom of our shoes.
valkayec // Nov 23, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Oh, Lord, when will this nation get over the hate that has infected our politics and policies for the last half century? When are we going to wake up the fact that we are one people deserving of “liberty and [economic] justice for all?
Today I read three articles in the New Yorker that confirmed my beliefs about politics in this country…and none of them were gentle in their conclusions; yet, they were fairly accurate in their conclusions – so much so that even conservative Clive Crook agreed.
Hate, in whatever form it takes, is the enemy of freedom and liberty as our forefather knew from their classical studies.
Shall we go the way of Rome or shall we choose to be better? Our founders held no belief that our nation would be better over the centuries than those which had existed previously, but they hoped for something better. Yet, here are today after only 200 years, choosing hate of the other, whether of political party or race or creed or gender or orientation, over our desire to preserve our nation and the economic equity of all of our people. We’re choosing greater benefits to the wealthy than concern for economic justice and opportunity for everyone else. We’re saying it’s okay for the rich to become richer, via distorting tax laws, than for entrepreneurs to disrupt markets to create new businesses and industries. We’re saying the uber wealthy deserve special rewards at the expense of middle and working classes.
In Germany today, you don’t find people so concerned with self-aggrandizement. They choose to own less to have a better, more stable society. They didn’t get caught up with bigger this or that as a way of showing how important they were. They chose to maintain societal stability and old fashioned conservative values. As a result of their value system, they have higher middle class incomes, continuous training, lower unemployment, lower medical costs, and greater social mobility. Shouldn’t we be learning something from them as our forefathers did?
What the bloody heck has gone wrong in our society? Is it all greed and self aggrandizing, self concern? Enough already!
PS Eric Erickson (whose photo leads this opinion piece) should be excoriated as yet another hate monger and held up to contempt as one who chooses to divide this nation further rather than find commonly accepted solutions to the economic and social problems that could move this nation into a 21st and 22nd century leadership position.Erickson and his obviously divisive ilk should fall into the classical Hades they’ve chosen to create.
anniemargret // Nov 25, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Good job, Valkayec. I agree totally with what you say. The demise of this country is not going to happen from without, but from within. We are being corrupted, there is no doubt of that. More and more I see complete and utter selfishness taking over for compassion and understanding and a willingness to help.
What I find so ironic is that so many so-called “Christians’ remain Republican, in the obvious face of a national party that despises the poor and gives lip service to the working man and woman. And it is precisely because religion itself, has become corrupted. The central tenet of Christianity is love of God, and to love God you must love your neighbor. Kindness, forgiveness, unselfishness, caring more about spiritual nature of our lives, rather than just the material.
I don’t know about you, but I see none of that in the Republican party as it now stands. Seems the more bashing they can do to the poor and struggling the more they relish it.
In the end, it is our own souls and our lives that we are ultimately responsible for. So I hope for our nation’s collective soul that individuals speak out against this abominable effort to diminish the needy, rather than help pull them up.
And if that means I pay more taxes for the betterment of society, they can count me in.
Bingham // Nov 26, 2011 at 4:16 am
¶ Then may the Priest say,
Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith.
THOU shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
Ogemaniac // Nov 24, 2011 at 7:33 am
Every time a conservative says “47% of Americans don’t pay taxes”, they are lying. Liars burn in hell, according to their favorite book which they all pretend to believe in. Shouldn’t they be worried a little more about their eternal souls than than Obama?
That being said, 47% of households owe no federal income tax. This is mostly because they are poor, close to poor, or living on minimal Social Security checks, and because EVERY other significant portion of our tax code is regressive and hits these people harder than most. Our overall tax system is pretty close to flat.
This “statistic” illustrates two core elements of spin in one stat. The first, of course, is the core element of spin – cherry picking. Only focusing on the federal income tax, and ignoring all other taxes (which completely conflict with the point the spinner is attempting to make) is classic cherry picking, and of course, dishonest.
This statistic also illustrates a higher level of spin, though. I like to call it the “easily dropped qualifier” lie. Note that when most smart talking head conservatives blurt this stat, they actually get it right, and include the two necessary qualifiers that make it literally true (but misleading, due to the cherry-picking). However, they darned well know that when their dittoheads repeat their spin, the qualifiers will be easily forgotten. This makes the stat sound a lot more powerful, but obviously removes its veneer of literal truth. This, of course, is exactly what the guys at Cato and Heritage were planning when they fed this line to Rush, Sean, and Glen so that it could be bleated to the masses a billion times.
balconesfault // Nov 24, 2011 at 8:20 am
However, they darned well know that when their dittoheads repeat their spin, the qualifiers will be easily forgotten.
As we’ve seen all too often on these comment boards.
Bingham // Nov 26, 2011 at 10:05 am
Fat pigs on welfare.
MSheridan // Nov 27, 2011 at 12:30 pm
About nine years ago, approximately half of my friends were fairly standard hard-right Republicans. We didn’t talk politics because things sometimes got too heated when we did. Today, I have the same friends (for which I gave thanks just the other day) and they have changed. Not a one of them has become liberal, but ALL of them have moderated their views to some extent and all of them have expressed a significant degree of disenchantment with the Republican Party. Some have left it entirely for Independent status. Of the others, the most conservative of the lot told me a couple of weeks ago that he didn’t see anyone out there he wanted to vote for. He was not sure he’d vote at all.
Aside from a certain degree of xenophobia, which is endemic on the right, I’d have to say that one of the strongest bonds keeping a handful of these friends tied, even loosely, to the right is the lies in the literature they get from the NRA about the Democrats’ imminent plans to take their guns. I may misjudge them, but I don’t think they’ll buy that line indefinitely.
Regardless, they’re not going to become more engaged by a call to raise taxes on themselves or on their parents (the people, in every case, from whom they derived their political beliefs). They’re also not going to read or hear about Ponnuru’s piece. Political junkies like me, like all the commenters here or at RedState or DailyKos or The Corner, are interested in dry analysis written by someone else. The vast majority of people in the right, left, or center pay attention to analysis only insofar as it entertains or provokes emotional response. So for opinion leaders the right has Rush Limbaugh and the left has Jon Stewart. Ramesh Ponnuru isn’t even as entertaining as Rachel Maddow, who is too wonky for most people even after her humor is taken into account. If the opinion leaders on the right choose not to be convinced by Ramesh–and why would they? It butters no bread for THEM–his opinion is only slightly more relevant than my own. I see no signs of hope here.
Rossg // Nov 28, 2011 at 8:43 am
Okay, so Erickson has 3 jobs, all of them likely generated thru self-employment. According to people like Grover Norquist, this is the American ideal. Except they must generate their own healthcare package (no group insurance for them). So when Erickson is complaining about his burden, is he not really complaining about his inability to get reliable income, and reliable healthcare? In a sense I think his complaints, and those of OWS, are alike. He seems to be upset toward the wrong party. But he is just like the rest of us: dazed and confused. The hard-right wants more people to be in this position.
ErikSanDiego // Dec 7, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Yup Hard to sell but a nice inflationary period given the fixed price of most housing debt would go a long way toward improving household balance sheet. Of course the seniors will HATE it and since Seniors Vote about as much chances as Frum being a keynote at the 2012 party convention ;(