RSS Feed Menu
Aaron Blake and Chris Cillizza describe a new CBS/NYT poll:
The poll also asked which class voters thought the Obama Administration and Republicans in Congress favored. While people were pretty evenly split on whether the administration favors the middle class, the rich or the poor, they were all but unanimous about which class the Republicans favor; 69 percent said Republicans in Congress favor the rich, while just 9 percent said the middle class and 2 percent said the poor.
Voters say the darndest things!
The identification of the GOP as mouthpiece for the selfish interests of the wealthy is a stubborn image, difficult to overcome at the best of times. For three years, however, Republican leaders have been doing their utmost to confirm the stereotype – and to quash and quell any attempt to counter that stereotype. Did we really spend months and months arguing that one of the things most wrong with the US tax code is that the poor and unemployed pay too little tax? Yes we did. Head shake. Face slap.
Given the terrible economic fundamentals, this reckless self-branding by Republicans may not in the end be enough to save President Obama from himself. But if he does manage to eke it out, the CBS/NYT result is the beginning of wisdom as to how and why.
Frumplestiltskin // Oct 27, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Otto said it best above: Over the past thirty years or so this clarity has become somwhat muddled by Republican invocations of race, god, nationalism, (and I would add abortion), guns and gays.
It is why Democrats wonder what the hell is the matter with Kansas. They see rich people as being like they want to be, they look at Democrats and see people who look nothing like them, who they think have no moral values, “blame America first”, want abortions government funded for elementary school students, want to stop them from hunting, and make them have sex with their own gender.
So no, since Republicans have been so good at this type of branding of Democrats, it doesn’t surprise me that Republicans win where by logic they should have no hope of winning.
Fart Carbuncle // Oct 28, 2011 at 1:36 pm
I disagree; I think the Democrats handily beat the GOP in muddling the waters, especially on race.
As a conservative, it comes with the territory — detest the entitlement state, stand up for individual responsibility and merit, oppose the swelling of a wasteful and incompetent government, fight to keep the tax man from taking more from your wallet than he leaves behind, and obviously you are a racist. And a sexist, an elitist and likely a homophobe.
So, when you talk about Republicans branding folks, look in a mirror.
Houndentenor // Oct 28, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Republicans claim to be be for less government spending, but never actually get around to the spending cuts. Yes, they cut some programs but more than make up for that by adding spending elsewhere.
It’s a lie. An oft-told one. Republicans are not for reducing federal spending. They just like to say they are.
Kevin B // Oct 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I’m not sure whether I belong to the 1% or the 99%. I cut my own hair, and I drink tap water in restaurants. But when I lost my job earlier this year, I seriously considered early retirement (I’m 46). Most of my income is dividends and capital gains now, anyway.
Fifteen years ago I was living paycheck to paycheck, with a net worth in the negative numbers. As soon as I was able to earn more than I needed to live, I started saving a significant part of my pay. At first it was just maxing out my 401(K) and the SPP at work, and paying down my debts. Losing the debt gave me more disposable income, so I started saving and investing. It’s been a roller coaster ride that resembles the 1% line on the graph that’s been in the news lately.
So I know it can be done.
Personally, if the Tea Party wins, I’m going to continue to thrive. But my heart is with OWS. If it’s so easy to follow the path I’ve been on, why are so many struggling right now?
Frumplestiltskin // Oct 27, 2011 at 1:03 pm
people live above their means, it is as simple as that. I did so in my early 20’s, it was only after I ripped up all my credit cards and lived in a flop house that I got my finances in order. But I have also since gotten married and have 3 kids which it doesn’t sound like it is in your case.
rbottoms // Oct 27, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Being unemployed changes that path.
Falling out of a decent paying job to barely above minimum wage changes that path.
You or a family member getting sick and losing that second income changes that path.
Your house losing it’s value into negative numbers changes that path.
In short sh*t happens and not all of it good.
Kevin B // Oct 28, 2011 at 1:59 am
Being unemployed changes that path.
I was unemployed for half this year. I started studying IOS programming until I got a call about a new job.
Falling out of a decent paying job to barely above minimum wage changes that path.
It’s better than being unemployed.
You or a family member getting sick and losing that second income changes that path.
I got a long term disability policy while I was healthy. I haven’t had to use it, but my sister had to use hers when a jet ski accident tore a hole in her gut and took her out of commission for a year of multiple surgeries and recoveries.
Your house losing it’s value into negative numbers changes that path.
I have enough saved to pay my mortgage off if I have to. I don’t plan to sell the house, so it’s market value is not a problem for me.
In short sh*t happens and not all of it good.
Agreed. But some of it is good. Most of these OWS folks are not going to be struggling their entire lives.
Two valuable lessons I’ve learned in my life: When things are bad, they will not always be bad. And when things are good they will not always be good. If you prepare during the good times for the bad times, you can even them out. You don’t get to enjoy the good times quite as much, but you also don’t have to suffer as horribly during the bad times.
This is not a message for the OWS crowd. They’re obviously not prepared to ride out the bad time, or they haven’t had a chance to prepare. But it’s a message I’d still want to give them individually: When your fortunes change (because you’ve effected real change with your protests, or because you learn to work within this new system, or because you just get lucky), don’t forget the struggle, and remember it can return at any time. You weren’t ready for this one, but you have a chance to be ready for the next one.
My current run of mostly good fortune started thirteen years ago with a bit of bad news at the doctor’s office. I expected by now I would be an invalid, or dead. I didn’t want to be a burden on my family, so I started saving money aggressively. I’m still here, and I don’t think I’m leaving this mortal coil soon.
Houndentenor // Oct 28, 2011 at 5:09 pm
A month of working full time at minimum wage is not going to cover the mortgage much less pay the bills. Yes, it’s better than being unemployed, but not much better.
LocalGroup // Oct 27, 2011 at 3:27 pm
“Personally, if the Tea Party wins, I’m going to continue to thrive.”
You will continue to thrive if the tea party wins only if the tea party does not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. And Grover Norquist may have killed that bird 20 years ago.
You seem to know what you’re doing. I’m afraid the same can not be said about the leaders of the tea party.
Kevin B // Oct 28, 2011 at 2:16 am
The secret to being rich is to have more than one goose.
I don’t think I’m rich enough to survive a total economic collapse or resourceful enough to weather a zombie apocalypse. But if the income gap widens and we become a society of managers in ivory towers and workers in underground factories, the rich will still be rich. It’s the middle class that will mostly suffer. A lucky few will move upstairs, but the rest will join the Morlocks working the machinery down below.
Houndentenor // Oct 28, 2011 at 5:17 pm
You don’t have to know that much history to know what happens when a few are rich and the rest don’t have enough to eat.
Kevin B // Oct 28, 2011 at 6:04 pm
I don’t disagree with that statement. Did you think I did?
Marquis // Oct 28, 2011 at 1:14 am
People are struggling because they got comfortable and complacent with steady careers, a nice suburban home, Volvo in the driveway, generous health insurance plan, and low prices. So, everybody thought the growth and wealth creation of the last 10 years was some economic miracle, but few people saw the boom for what it really was: fake, subprime, debt-fueled illusion. You saw the stories on the news of people who were laid off and foreclosed upon, or people forced into bankruptcy because of medical costs. But you thought, well, I’m doing fine, my neighbor’s doing fine, I’ve done everything right, so what’s the problem?! It could never happen to me!! Right? Right??
Ogemaniac // Oct 28, 2011 at 10:24 am
Kevin, you have been fortunate in your life in a thousand ways. In real life, crap happens. I can tell from your writing that you are intelligent, for example. Did you earn that? Nope. You were born that way. Where would you be if you had been a dim bulb? Where would you be if you were sick? Or if you hadn’t have a decent family who sent you to good schools? Where would you be if the career you had choosen turned out to be a bad fit, or something outsourced to India? Or if your investments had flamed out?
Where you wind up in life is about half luck, half choices. You are clearly wise enough to understand this. Please quite mistaking your good fortune for policy.
drdredel // Oct 28, 2011 at 2:17 pm
it’s actually more like 95% luck… but I’m just being nitpicky.
Kevin B // Oct 28, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Yes, I understand everything you say, and I agree I’ve been lucky in a thousand ways. I’ve also been unlucky in 999 ways. I’ve made good and bad decisions.
I don’t know what your point is. Do you disagree that when you are doing well, you should prepare for worse times to come? Do you think when you are not doing well, you should assume that you are going to sink into the abyss?
That’s all I’m saying. I don’t believe that these OWS protesters are destined for tragedy for the rest of their lives. Do you think they are doomed? Some will not recover, but most will. My advice to the ones who will pull through is to assume that there will be more bad times ahead, and to prepare for them when they have the resources. Would you give different advice? Why?
Houndentenor // Oct 28, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Both liberal Suze Orman and libertarian Dave Ramsay give the same basic advice: when you are doing well, plan ahead for when you are not. If the rainy day never comes, you have money in the bank. If it does, you have money in the bank!!!
The problem is that we as a culture have bought into an idea that we can spend as quickly as we earn. I would blame advertisers for that but it’s not like they held a gun to our heads. Just because someone presents us with bad ideas, doesn’t mean we have to do them.
So hopefully these young people will be like my grandparents were after surviving the Great Depression. But I don’t think they are protesting for the reasons you think they are. The days of starting at the bottom and working your way to the top are over and have been for a long time. You might be able to work your way to the lower middle, but even then someone from a fancy school is likely to get the job instead of you. For some reason conservatives, especially older ones, don’t seem to grasp that things don’t work like they did 50 years ago. But some principles, like saving for emergencies, are still just as important as they ever were, and on that point we agree.
Ogemaniac // Oct 28, 2011 at 9:16 pm
“Yes, I understand everything you say, and I agree I’ve been lucky in a thousand ways. I’ve also been unlucky in 999 ways”
Simply being born an American already puts your lucky/unlucky ratio at 5:1. From what I can surmise, you are luckier than the average American as well. I have two fundamental points. One is that there is nothing morally wrong with “redistributing” the wealth of our nation, because the distribution that arises from our (un-free) market system is substantially based on luck and cronyism and only weakly related to working and studying hard. The second is that we can’t expect most people to be uber-responsible, insure themselves against everything, and never face major life hardships, because it will never, ever happen. We have to build an economic and social system that is robust to stupidity and risk-taking, because they both will be around forever.
I think you are overly optimistic about the state of today’s young people. Studies consistently show that entering a poor job market at the start of one’s career lowers one’s income for many years, if not for a lifetime. Combine that with rising commodity prices as we push towards “Peak Everything”, an aging population which will require more and more effort and taxes to support, ballooning debts used primarily to pay for past consumption and not investment, problems related to climate change, ever-increasing competition from the poor in developing nations, and the decreasing return on both higher education and R&D, it is hard to see what is going to drive growth and opportunity in the future. A prudent person would be planning for very low growth in the advanced world, flat wages, a deteriorating environment, and increasing commodity prices. That’s the future we have inflicted upon the young. Shouldn’t we be proud?
Kevin B // Oct 29, 2011 at 12:53 am
Ah, I see. So we should do nothing for the people who are currently at a relative disadvantage in the OWS protests. Since they are Americans, they already have a 5:1 advantage over the rest of the world. You can’t disagree with that logic, since it’s your own.
No matter what you say, I’m going to advise people to prepare for bad times when times are good for them. You seem to have a problem with that message.
I’m not opposed to “redistribution of wealth” within limits. And yes, I have a higher opinion of the OWS protesters than you do.
Ann Thomas // Oct 27, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Why can’t we just admit that the economic policies of Republicans-which I once believed in-just don’t work unless you are in the top 1%? Yes, Reagan’s trickle-down theory sounded good but fell apart due to greed and inequity. For years, Republicans were subtle in their support for the rich and policies that coddled the richest among us. Now they are loud and proud to say it. The Ryan Plan says all we need to know. They are not really against taxes or making the poor and middle class pay more. They are against taxing the rich. You might not call it a tax, but what do you think cutting Medicare benefits is? Cutting Pell grants?
Closing Planned Parenthood for low income women? How much more are they
willing to see come from the pockets of the poor and middle class before they
dare tax the rich even a dime? Look at who is being reasonable and who is not
on the Supercommittee. Dems have put SS and Medicare on the table but the
stubborn Republicans won’t consider one penny of taxes to the rich to help with
the “crisis” they speak of. We now learn that letting the Bush tax cuts expire
will pretty much end our deficit issues. But would the GOP ever consider that?
No-because they really don’t care about the debt or the future of our children.
They care about protecting the rich. Glad to see so many Independents see
through the true agenda of the GOP. Hope their voices are heard in the next
election. And I disagree that Obama is his worst enemy or should be nervous.
There is a reason the GOP is doing everything they can to pass laws that
disenfranchise voters/voter ID laws for a non-existent “problem” of voter fraud.
They know cheating is the only way to beat Pres. Obama.
LFC // Oct 27, 2011 at 1:54 pm
I think that some here are being a bit unfair about supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve. When top rates are at 50%, as they were under Reagan, some flattening was definitely in order. The Laffer Curve is actually quite realistic in that you can expect greatly reduced economic activity when you have 90% tax rates.
The problems with the current GOP is that they believe the age old myth that if some is good, more must be better. They also don’t realize that the Laffer Curve has two sides. Reagan went too far on the tax cut front and put his name to a number of tax increases to get closer to a sustainable tax code. HW went a bit further and Clinton and the Dems finally put us where we belonged with reasonable tax rates balanced with a slowing of spending growth (starting two years before the GOP took control of Congress). Since then the GOP has taken what was working and destroyed it with their simplistic economic idea that more must be better.
So don’t trash supply-side economics. Just recognize that under the tax rates we had in 2000 there were simply no more economic gains left to be had by cutting taxes on the highest earners. The outcome of the Bush years should be more than enough proof for anybody who can add and subtract.
jamesj // Oct 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Well put. Of course the Laffer Curve has something important to tell us about taxation and its ability to slow productive output. Of course the Laffer Curve does not say that tax reductions always result in significant gains in productive output. And it is clear which side of the curve we’re on in the modern USA.
The modern Republican Party’s one size fits all method of thinking is damaging to the country and has converted me from a staunch Republican voter into an evangelist against the modern party’s behavior. The old school and new school are completely disconnected.
To solve a problem, you must first diagnose the cause. The modern Republican Party has a pet cause it keeps turning to even though all evidence points to the contrary.
Sinan // Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 pm
The Laffer curve is mathematics, nothing else. It represents an ideal model of tax policy that does not exist anywhere. In the aggregate, the curve attempts to represent all tax revenues in a bell shaped Gaussian curve that looks gorgeous on paper. In the real world actual tax policy is almost impossible to model due to the complexity of our code. The key to understanding why it is basically only mind candy is the admission by Laffer himself that it is virtually impossible to tell which side of his curve you are on at any one point in time. His reply to this enigma is to pronounce that even if you are on the “bad” side, lower taxes are still required because it is good policy regardless. By admitting this he might as well have said that his curve is nothing but jargon justifying his ideology and worthless as an economic tool.
ottovbvs // Oct 27, 2011 at 3:04 pm
“The Laffer Curve is actually quite realistic in that you can expect greatly reduced economic activity when you have 90% tax rates.”
Actually it isn’t true that you can expect “greatly reduced economic activity.” The period from the late forties to early 70’s when these higher marginal rates prevailed were periods of huge economic activity and growth. I don’t disagree with the notion that it made sense to reduce the top rates because they were “something” of a disincentive but your claim is way too sweeping. And in any case this is not what were talking about. No one is proposing to take top marginal rates back up to 90%. The Laffer curve to the extent it was effective was as you point out subject to the law of diminishing returns like most activities. I’d also note that subsequent to his initial swingeing tax cuts Reagan actually raised taxes no less than 11 times and recouped about half of what he’d give away although in the process he did make the tax system less progressive.
t6c // Oct 27, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Good comment, Otto.
The Tax Foundation has the U.S. individual income tax rates from 1913 to 2011
(URL: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html). Also, maximum tax rates were higher in the Great Depression (80%) than they were in the 1950’s-1960’s (90%) not sure how Laffer’s theory explains that.
sparse // Oct 27, 2011 at 1:55 pm
i think it is time to ask if there are any smart republicans left.
sure, there may well be intelligent people who are republican, but since they have clearly lost control of the party, it is time to ask if it is smart to stay. these things never end well, you know.
valkayec // Oct 27, 2011 at 1:57 pm
What I want to know is who are the 2% who think the GOP favors the poor most? What fantasy land are they living in?
If anything said the GOP favors the rich more, the trip to Wall St that McConnell and Boehner took not long after the financial regulations were passed says it all. As well publicized, these two specifically went to Wall St to do two things: drum up donations for the GOP and to assure Wall St. that the GOP would overturn Dodd-Frank and replace it with nothing.
Regardless of their very public claims of loyalty and concern for middle Americans, GOP actions show a very different storyline. And with OWS focusing the nation’s attention once again on the economy and jobs, it’s much harder for the GOP to distract the public or continue to make claims so easily disputed. A thorough reading of the poll, including the questions, reveals that the public has lost whatever faith it had in the GOP messaging of the last year. Since Jan. after the GOP took over the House, the public view of the economy has grown worse. One could conclude that more voters have decided that the GOP has made the economy worse and dampened trust/optimism while at the same time not seeing Obama as being a strong enough leader on the economy by (magically) getting Republican support.
Moreover, the Republican Presidential candidates are not doing the GOP any favors with their tax plans that favor the uber wealthy while increasing taxes on the 99% and pushing for public benefits decreases (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) while refusing to consider any revenue increases. Voters, at this point, may not like Obama on the economy, but my guess is they really, really will not like the Republicans as they begin to pay more attention to the GOP agenda.
medinnus // Oct 27, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Well, it might be the upper 2%, to whom by comparison everyone not making at least 250K per year is considered “poor”… )
Kevin B // Oct 27, 2011 at 2:14 pm
What I want to know is who are the 2% who think the GOP favors the poor most? What fantasy land are they living in?
It’s within the margin of error. Some people tell pollsters what they think the pollsters want to hear, and some people tell them the opposite of what they think the pollsters want to hear, regardless of what they actually feel about the question being asked.
jamesj // Oct 27, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Some of my family members and friends honestly do believe that the modern Republican Party advocates policies that would help the poor the most in the long run. They honestly believe in their hearts that Western Civilization took a turn for the worse. They honestly believe in their hearts that vast risky experiments should be taken to revamp the architecture of civilization in a more harshly individualistic direction. They honestly believe in their hearts that once the dust settled and generations were chewed up in the gears of this experiment, the survivors would live fuller, happier, more productive lives.
There are people out there who even in the current political climate can justify a belief that the modern party advocates policies that would help all people, including the poor. Never underestimate the dogmatic tendency of the human mind to stick to its original script.
jakester // Oct 27, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Since when was the GOP the party of the poor? This article is like some NRA member complaining that the NRA isn’t doing enough for gun control.
Nanotek // Oct 27, 2011 at 4:15 pm
“Who Burned the GOP Brand?”
who and what …
who ? Republican corporatists and theocrats
what? GOP’s 30 year war on America’s working class and religious & cultural correctness
reap the winds
LauraNo // Oct 27, 2011 at 5:21 pm
annie, they are pretty bad for people in the middle east too.
anniemargret // Oct 27, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Well, Laura…I reread my original comment and realized I could have added that they are also terrible in foreign policy. The billions spent in Iraq could have solved a multitude of problems. I don’t trust the Republicans to do the correct and responsible thing on *anything*.
anniemargret // Oct 27, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Here’s the perception and the reality. They are the party of the wealthy and big business. While they continue to try to do a PT Barnum on the working class, the smarter working class vote Democrat. The rest of the working class that vote Republican do so because they think (wrongly) that Democrats are libertines.
The Democrats of today are the moderate conservatives that the GOP can no longer point to with assurance within their own party. The working class that vote Republican do so because of rigid religious ideology or because they equate Republicans with a strong military defense.
They haven’t learned their lessons yet. The younger gen is not buying into the fluff of religious issues and/or military prowess anymore, particularly after the Iraq disaster.
They’ve become a very narrow, very embittered, very static party, deathly afraid of change and progress. If you are a wealthy person, it won’t matter a whit. If you are a middle class working American or poor, or in any kind of minority, you have got to have rocks in your head if you think the GOP gives a hang about you.
hisgirlfriday // Oct 27, 2011 at 7:24 pm
David, I hate to break it to you but the GOP brand damage goes back more than 3 years. For liberals it goes back to Reagan or even Coolidge. It’s been apparent to EVERYONE since W. came into office, but in 2000 so many more people felt rich because of the prosperous ’90s and stock market boom that they thought they’d become rich enough to vote Republican.
Oh and remember your old boss talking about “my base” as the “haves and the have mores”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls
The Bush tax cuts established GOP as the rich people party for at least the next 30 years. So did the less remembered, but just as destructive, Creditor Empowerment Act of 2005 that expanded the bubble frenzy of credit pre-2008 and has punished consumers so mightily post-2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act_of_2005
From wikipedia:
“It was widely claimed by advocates of BAPCPA that its passage would reduce losses to creditors such as credit card companies, and that those creditors would then pass on the savings to other borrowers in the form of lower interest rates. These claims turned out to be false. After BAPCPA passed, although credit card company losses decreased, prices charged to customers increased, and credit card company profits soared.”
BAPCPA also had a big hand in our nation’s current disastrous student loan problems and their drag on the economy.
“BAPCPA amended § 523(a)(8) to broaden the types of educational (“student”) loans that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy absent proof of “undue hardship.” The nature of the lender is no longer relevant. Thus, even loans from “for-profit” or “non-governmental” entities are not dischargeable.”
rbottoms // Oct 27, 2011 at 7:30 pm
[blockquote]Madison – The public will be able to carry guns into most parts of the state Capitol, under a policy being developed by Gov. Scott Walker.
Lawmakers are developing their own policies that would allow individual lawmakers to decide whether to allow guns into their offices.
Under rules planned for one chamber, guns would be allowed on the Assembly floor and in the Assembly viewing galleries, said sources who have been briefed on the plans. That would mean the public could bring guns into the viewing galleries but would still have to adhere to other existing rules, including one that bars the use of still cameras and video cameras.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/capitol-to-allow-concealed-weapons-assembly-to-allow-them-on-the-floor-132656308.html
[/blockquote]
This will end well.
What’s next for the NRA, guns on the floor of the United States Senate?
GOP, just another word for crackpot.
sweatyb // Oct 27, 2011 at 8:06 pm
If someone wants to shoot a gun in a public building, they’ll find a way to do it. If it makes you happy to feel a cold, deadly weapon pressing up against you while your walking around, I say go for it.
I find it hard to fathom how they justify barring video cameras, though I’d bet they’re squarely in the majority with such rules. Heaven forbid the public might see what they’re doing in there.
overshoot // Oct 27, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Someone with a gun in the gallery might kill a few legislators, but someone with recording equipment will ruin it for everyone.
valkayec // Oct 27, 2011 at 9:37 pm
This legislation along with other states’ legislation that allows concealed weapons in bars will come back to haunt the GOP. I can already foresee lots of dead people in those Red states. Guns and anger don’t mix well. A few of years ago, I read a story about two neighbors who had some silly argument. They got really angry at each other, yelling and screaming obscenities. That sort of thing. One, however, really lost his temper and walked into his house and got his gun. He killed is neighbor.
Imagine what a stupid drunk would do? Or some nut case sitting in the Capital gallery who gets pissed off at a legislator? I wonder how many legislators will find NRA donations and approval worthwhile when bullets start flying around the room?
Once again, I’m thankful I live in California – a blue state – that is not yet owned by Norquist, the Club for Growth, AFP, ALEC, and the NRA.
Daily Deadline: The Return of Multiple Choice Mitt | My Blog // Oct 27, 2011 at 7:34 pm
[...] the GOP brand dead? David Frum thinks [...]
nhthinker // Oct 28, 2011 at 12:10 am
From Nixon on, Republican policies of opening up US markets to China, and Mexico, etc. and encourage US based companies to internationalize and invest in foreign countries, have done tremendously to help the poor and middle class.
The global set of poor and middle class were much improved by the drain of capital investment in US workers and to place it instead to workers in poorer countries.
It’s actually the protectionists that are not sensitive to the poor and the middle class (at least from a global sense).
ottovbvs // Oct 28, 2011 at 10:23 am
“From Nixon on, Republican policies”
Actually the Democrats have generally been far more internationalist in outlook or haven’t you ever heard of the Marshall Plan which happened 25 years before Nixon (somewhat to the horror of his own party) opened up relations with China.
nhthinker // Oct 28, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Americans bootstrapped the rest of the world so that their poor and middle-class would be more competitive with us for the world’s resources and the world’s jobs.
Those that complain that the median wage of non-college educated American workers eroding fail to see the relationship between the good the Americans capitalists have done for the rest of the world’s poor and middle class.
Except for places like North Korea… our sanctions based on politics help result in the major brunt impacting the poorest North Koreans- Many of them that poison themselves by eating inedible grasses just so that they will feel full.
My bet is sanctions that impact the poor will someday be viewed as substantial more immoral than assassinating leaders that would allow their poor to starve in order to resist sanctions. Intentionally destroying or impeding an economy kills poor people.
But the rules of war/foreign policy are still based on the concept that leaders are worth infinitely more than poor citizens.
ottovbvs // Oct 29, 2011 at 11:51 am
“Americans bootstrapped the rest of the world so that their poor and middle-class would be more competitive with us for the world’s resources and the world’s jobs.”
You could say the same about the British Empire in the 19th century. British capital basically financed US industrialisation and the Indian railway system.
Clayman // Oct 28, 2011 at 12:45 am
Who Burned the GOP Brand? It was a team effort:
Limbaugh
Cheney
Norquist
Hannity
Cantor
Rove
McConnell
Gingrich
Schlafly
Falwell
Graham (both)
Bachmann
Reed
Kristol
Krauthammer
Rumsfeld
Reagan
Bush W
Santorum
and the winner is Palin.
LocalGroup // Oct 28, 2011 at 12:01 pm
“and the winner is Palin.”
Maybe in the swimsuit competition.
But in the pure, unmitigated evil competition, I’m voting for Cheney
Traveler // Oct 28, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Don’t forget Atwater
Clayman // Oct 28, 2011 at 11:49 pm
The second tier list will be posted soon with Ann Coulter, Lee Atwater, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Lou Dobbs leading the pack.
Grace // Oct 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm
You know, I really don’t have a problem with the GOP being the party of the rich. As others have stated, that has been well known for decades, but for quite a long time it didn’t amount to a death knell for the middle and working classes. Uintil the 80’s, even the rich seemed to recognize they were part of the larger country and were not motivated to pursue policies designed to crush the other classes as that would have been counterproductive to their fortunes.
Now, the ultra-wealthy who fund and control the GOP really have no allegiance to any country. Torches and pitchforks come out in one country? Within half an hour they can be airborne on their private jet to one of many gated and guarded compounds around the world. Their fortunes are made globally, so they have no need to feel part of any country and they will always have a friendly playground somewhere. Installing governments that give them open access to pillaging the treasury just means more in their pocket and by their standards, it’s very cheap to buy governments. They might not be able to buy Rick Perry for $5,000 but even at $5 million he’s a bargain if you stand to gain billions over the next few years from his policies.
I’m now taking the daily insults to my intelligence in the nonsense peddled by ridiculous GOP ‘leaders’ through smirks and smug grins very personally.
They think we are ignorant.
They think we are suckers.
They think we are stupid.
They think we are parasites.
They are wrong.
Fart Carbuncle // Oct 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Please, stop the class warfare that Obama started for his own selfish reasons.
“He [Obama] gave us a message of hope three years ago of uniting, not dividing. And what we’re getting now are class warfare. We’re getting very polarizing rhetoric that puts class against class, pits people against one another. And I would simply say sowing social unrest and class resentment does not make America stronger, it makes America weaker.”
-Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)
Grace // Oct 28, 2011 at 2:49 pm
You can’t be serious, quoting Paul Ryan? The author of a GOP-approved budget based on ridiculous fantasy numbers that even Heritage couldn’t run away from fast enough? That funds more massive tax cuts for the wealthy by reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits? The crackpot promoter of CouponCare?
Why is it class warfare when the middle and working classes ask for a level playing field? Why isn’t the wealthy’s war on the working and middle classes ever an issue for the GOP?
Paul Ryan is a liar who bases his world view on a (bad) novel. And you are a fool for parroting his lies, unless you’re in the top 1%. If you are, more power to you. If you’re not, lay off the Rush and open your eyes. You’re nothing but a useful idiot in their eyes.
drdredel // Oct 28, 2011 at 2:23 pm
David,
What rubs me the wrong way here is that you’re criticizing the message, not the underlying intentions! You’re concerned with “did we really say that…” rather than “did we really enact and promote policies that…”! The fact is that if you are cognizant of the fact that Republican policies do favor the rich, and are simply upset that modern GOPers are making an honest plea to the morons that would agree with them, to raise taxes on the poor and lower them on the rich, your message shouldn’t be “let’s stop revealing our game plan, if we want to win” your message (if you’re a decent human being) should be “this game plan is unfair, unsustainable, and completely unnecessary”.
That should be your criticism. Not… “let’s not be so honest, or we’ll never win.”
Right Handed Canuck // Oct 30, 2011 at 10:49 am
Charles Krauthammer’s asserted in a Sept. 8, 2011 column in the Washington Post, “During the golden Eisenhower 1950s of robust economic growth averaging 5 percent annually, defense spending was 11 percent of GDP and 60 percent of the federal budget. Yet, an April 8, 2011 article at Fortune.com states, “The effective corporate tax rate has been steadily declining for decades. Corporations paid more than 49% of their profits in federal taxes in the 1950s, 38% in the 1960s, 33% in the 1970s and 25% in the 1980s. All the while, U.S. wages have been stagnant for years even as productivity has risen. Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. productivity grew by 62.5% — far outpacing wages, which grew by only 12% during the same period, according to a March 2011 study by the Economic Policy Institute.” Could it be that lower corporate tax rates and lower income tax rates for the rich are not the answer? Perhaps the way out of this economic malaise is to return to the tax policies implemented under the stewardship of President Eisenhower?
Historical U.S. Federal marginal income tax rates for Married Filing Jointly at stated income levels.
Year $10,001 $20,001 $60,001 $100,001 $250,001
1952 42% 62% 80% 90% 92%
1954 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1956 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1958 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1960 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
2000 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%
2002 10% 15% 27% 27% 35%
2004 10% 15% 25% 25% 33%
2006 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
2008 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
2010 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
Kevin B // Oct 30, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Are these tax rates adjusted for inflation?
Using an inflation calculator, it seems that a $10,000 salary in 1960 is equivalent to almost $75,000 in 2011. So rolling back to the Clinton era tax rates would be more appropriate for middle class incomes.