American Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Right Fears ‘Purge’ As GOP Leadership Takes Control

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...e-as-gop-leadership-takes-control.php?ref=fpa

Conservatives fear they’re being pushed aside by Republican leaders as the party looks to regroup from its election losses.

“At the end of the day we lost seats in the House, we lost seats in the Senate, we couldn’t win the presidency, and the response is to purge conservatives,” Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) said Tuesday during a briefing at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington.

Huelskamp is one of four Republicans who were stripped of committee seats this week for bucking leadership over the last term. Huelskamp lost his spot on the Budget Committee, where he voted against the House GOP’s budget last year along with Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who also was removed this week. David Schweikert (R-AZ) and Walter Jones (R-NC), who also voted against the budget from the right, lost seats on the Financial Services Committee.

“It confirms, in my mind, the deepest suspicions of most Americans about Washington, D.C.,” Huelskamp said. “It’s petty, its vindictive, and if you have any conservative principles you will be punished for articulating those.”

Amash, speaking at the same briefing, said he had not received any personal messages or phone calls from leadership announcing his demotion. But he attributed his calls for reduced military spending as the most likely cause for the conflict.

“I think they are willing to raise taxes to avoid any defense cuts,” Amash said. “I think they’re willing to take really bad deals to avoid any defense cuts of even a few dollars.”

The decision to demote several popular conservative representatives could heighten tensions between House leaders and right-wing activists, a relationship that’s already under pressure during fiscal cliff negotiations.

“This is establishment thinking, circling the wagons around yes-men and punishing anyone that dares to take a stand for good public policy,” FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe (whose group has its own internal issues this week) said in a statement.

FreedomWorks and other tea party organizers and lawmakers have condemned Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) this week for including revenues in his opening bid to avert the fiscal cliff. A number of Republicans have suggested the GOP go further and end its resistance to letting the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners expire in order to move on to other fights.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) tweeted on Tuesday that “Speaker Boehner’s offer of an $800 billion tax hike will destroy jobs and allow politicians in Washington to spend even more.”

Staff at the Heritage Foundation savaged the proposal as well, accusing GOP leaders of being too weak on taxes and too timid in proposing major entitlement cuts.

“At first blush, it appears little more than categorical, pre-emptive capitulation,” Heritage Foundation experts Alison Acosta Fraser and J.D. Foster wrote in a blog post. They went on to describe Boehner’s offer as “bad policy, bad economics, and, if we may say so, highly questionable as a negotiating tactic.”

In theory, Boehner might benefit from ongoing conflicts on the right as they make his own proposals appear more moderate. But if he can’t credibly promise his own party’s votes in a final deal, the White House is likely to greet his negotiations with far greater skepticism and GOP messaging will be splintered if a deal falls apart. Considering that the top policy item on Congress’ agenda after the fiscal cliff is immigration reform, another highly contentious issue on the right, GOP leaders are likely to be under heavy pressure from the base throughout the next year.


Is it possible the moderates can succeed?
 
Meh, he announced he was leaving ages before the election.

Obama's lead now up to 4.7 million, 3.6% or so.

Chait has some fun with Krauthammer today:

Krauthammer begins his column by sneering at Obama’s “landslide 2.8 point victory margin.” In fact, with votes still being tabulated, Obama is currently leading by 3.6% and rising — a reasonably healthy lead in comparison with, say, the 2.4 percent victory for George W. Bush in 2004, which Krauthammer at the time called “a large majority, or a significant majority.”
Click to expand...

Krauthammer proceeds to argue that the entire point of the negotiation — or, rather, “demand” — is to humiliate the poor Republicans rather than actually reduce the deficit:

As for the alleged curative effect on debt of Obama’s tax-rate demand — the full rate hike on the “rich” would have reduced the 2012 deficit from $1.10 trillion to $1.02 trillion.

That’s a joke, a rounding error.
Click to expand...

It is certainly true that Obama’s proposal would have minimal effect on revenue in year one. In part that’s by design — if it sucked a huge amount of revenue up immediately, Krauthammer would (justifiably) complain that Obama was proposing to induce a new recession. But Obama’s revenue plan would leave a serious dent in the long-term deficit. If Krauthammer doubts this point, I would refer him to six paragraphs earlier in his own column, in which he bemoans the vast $1.6 trillion in higher revenue Obama’s proposal would raise.
Click to expand...

:lol: what a bellend
 
Can anyone explain to me why Obama ran on raising tax rates only for the top 2%? I mean, would it have been politically any less convenient to go for the top 5%, say? $250,000 a year is a lot of money, I don't really see why people on that should be protected from Clinton-era tax rates.

It would have raised a lot more revenue and put him in an even stronger negotiating position, where he didn't have to cut that much to get the deficit back on course.
 
Now isn't the time to be raising taxes on too many people when what you really need is stimulus?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Now isn't the time to be raising taxes on too many people when what you really need is stimulus?
Click to expand...

This. We shouldn't be engaging in any sort of austerity right now, but Republicans insist, and they can't be circumvented since they control the House.

A lot of the $100K+ types live in high cost-of-living areas like NYC/DC/LA/SF and are basically middle class, if on the upper end of that scale. Taking money out of their pockets will reduce their spending, which will have anti-stimulative effects. The reason we want taxes going up on the top brackets is that it has no significant anti-stimulative effects, so if we can concentrate as much of the deficit reduction, we can avoid too much negative impact on growth.
 
Excal said:
This. We shouldn't be engaging in any sort of austerity right now, but Republicans insist, and they can't be circumvented since they control the House.

A lot of the $100K+ types live in high cost-of-living areas like NYC/DC/LA/SF and are basically middle class, if on the upper end of that scale. Taking money out of their pockets will reduce their spending, which will have anti-stimulative effects. The reason we want taxes going up on the top brackets is that it has no significant anti-stimulative effects, so if we can concentrate as much of the deficit reduction, we can avoid too much negative impact on growth.
Click to expand...

$100K doesn't get you very far in SF these days. Property prices in the Bay Area are still sky-high. We bought a townhouse in Marin County in 2002 for $400+K and it was on the cheap end of things back then. We moved to SC in 2011 and for less than half of that, you can get a decent home with land attached.

I don't want to see my taxes go up at all, but it looks like that's where we're heading. Unemployment here is rife and wages for the ordinary bloke are pitiful. It's a "right to work" state which means that the Unions are insignificant and employers hold the whip hand. If taxes increase on small businesses (or even big ones) there'll be a lot more South Carolinians on unemployment benefits.
 
100K is one thing, 250K another. That gets you reasonably far wherever you live. Obama's not raising anyone's taxes under 250K.

The austerity point is fair enough. It just seems a shame that, having had the guts to actually campaign on Clinton-level taxes on the rich, and then won, the new normal will be that anyone up to 250K is middle-class and mustn't have their rates raised to more progressive levels.

If you're on $150K a year, you're rich, it really is that simple.
 
Schumar, the senator from New York was suggesting for a while raising the tax rates for only those above 1 million. $200,000 is not a whole lot if you live in NY and SF.

$250,000 is good strategy.

But the biggest thing we need is a large stimulous...errr jobs bill.
 
Red Dreams said:
Schumar, the senator from New York was suggesting for a while raising the tax rates for only those above 1 million. $200,000 is not a whole lot if you live in NY and SF.

$250,000 is good strategy.

But the biggest thing we need is a large stimulous...errr jobs bill.
Click to expand...

I made about $120K in SF and it really wasn't enough; especially after the dot com boom started. Property prices went through the roof as dot commers paid way over the odds for anything that came on the market. Prices shot up for groceries, fuel, services, and just about everything else. SF suffered a shortage of cops, teachers, firefighters, and nurses because they couldn't afford the rents in the city. San Jose was even worse for some things and even Oakland started seeing price increases and gentrification.

One orthopaedic surgeon I knew told me that he needed to make over $400K a year just to cover his practice, house payments, college loans, and his kids' school fees. This was a guy who served on the US Olympic team and took care of players from the Raiders and A's.

$250K is about right though. I'm not likely ever to see that kind of salary here (or anywhere else for that matter).
 
Red Dreams said:
Schumar, the senator from New York was suggesting for a while raising the tax rates for only those above 1 million. $200,000 is not a whole lot if you live in NY and SF.

$250,000 is good strategy.

But the biggest thing we need is a large stimulous...errr jobs bill.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be sarcastic here, but seriously, even if no arrangement is made before the end of the year and taxes go up on everyone, what does it fix? Nearly nothing. It is nothing compared to what is being spent. Not sure of the exact timeline but this tax increase funds the gov't for something like two weeks.

It doesn't begin to address the debt or deficit.

Tax reform must be done but spending must be addressed as well.
 
Cali Red said:
Not trying to be sarcastic here, but seriously, even if no arrangement is made before the end of the year and taxes go up on everyone, what does it fix? Nearly nothing. It is nothing compared to what is being spent. Not sure of the exact timeline but this tax increase funds the gov't for something like two weeks.

It doesn't begin to address the debt or deficit.

Tax reform must be done but spending must be addressed as well.
Click to expand...

What do you reckon to the idea of a flat sales tax?
 
Cali Red said:
Not trying to be sarcastic here, but seriously, even if no arrangement is made before the end of the year and taxes go up on everyone, what does it fix? Nearly nothing. It is nothing compared to what is being spent. Not sure of the exact timeline but this tax increase funds the gov't for something like two weeks.

It doesn't begin to address the debt or deficit.

Tax reform must be done but spending must be addressed as well.
Click to expand...

The whole issue of rates going up is more a recognition that the top part of society has had an unfair advantage and now they need to 'pay their share'. I agree it does not do much to address the defecit,, which I think is what you are talking about. Tax reform does need to be done...but specifically it needs to close all the loopholes which allow people to keep their money overseas and thus avoid paying US taxes...ala Romney.

Spending cuts need to address waste mare than anything. Payments to third parties be it medicare, medicaid, defence what have you. Beneficiaries must not suffer. They did not cause the recession. And if the aim is to get us out of recession...its the worst idea to actually take money from those who will be the first to spend it...the economy simply needs more people to spend.

I think this is getting through...though there is posturing from the right against such 'socialist' thoughts.
 
Moriarty said:
What do you reckon to the idea of a flat sales tax?
Click to expand...

The Libertarian in me says I like it. However, I think a progressive tax is the only realistic option.

Red Dreams said:
The whole issue of rates going up is more a recognition that the top part of society has had an unfair advantage and now they need to 'pay their share'. I agree it does not do much to address the defecit,, which I think is what you are talking about. Tax reform does need to be done...but specifically it needs to close all the loopholes which allow people to keep their money overseas and thus avoid paying US taxes...ala Romney.

Spending cuts need to address waste mare than anything. Payments to third parties be it medicare, medicaid, defence what have you. Beneficiaries must not suffer. They did not cause the recession. And if the aim is to get us out of recession...its the worst idea to actually take money from those who will be the first to spend it...the economy simply needs more people to spend.

I think this is getting through...though there is posturing from the right against such 'socialist' thoughts.
Click to expand...

Well again, paying their fair share is bunk. The top 2% already provide something like 50% of the revenue. Seems like their paying one hell of a share already. After Jan 1, here in Cali the taxes go up (some retroactively I might add) and I will be paying somewhere between 38-41% and that doesn't count the zillions of other taxes and fees. That's a lot of money I give to the feds and Sacramento. A lot.

And the term "rich" is becoming less and less as time goes on. The slogan was "millionaires and billionaires" now it's families making $250K.

Red Dreams said:
I assume that is a provocative question... :eek:
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Cali Red said:
Well again, paying their fair share is bunk. The top 2% already provide something like 50% of the revenue. Seems like their paying one hell of a share already. After Jan 1, here in Cali the taxes go up (some retroactively I might add) and I will be paying somewhere between 38-41% and that doesn't count the zillions of other taxes and fees. That's a lot of money I give to the feds and Sacramento. A lot.

And the term "rich" is becoming less and less as time goes on. The slogan was "millionaires and billionaires" now it's families making $250K.
Click to expand...

I've heard that argument before. It only makes sense when tax rates are compared...you earn more you pay a higher rate. Saw this elsewhere. They worked out that you need to be earning at least $75,000 before you don't have to worry about basic things....now this was in Minnesota. I can understand in California and New York, that level will be much higher.

About taxes in general, I am not one that thinks just taxing people is the answer. There needs to be accountability and all spending needs to be monitored closely so there is little waste/fraud and such.

You'll know better about all those fees. Surely all these need to be explained.

This much I do know...asking those at the bottom to carry the bigger burden solves nothing...those at the top are not going to wilt if asked to pay a point or two more.
 
Red Dreams said:
I've heard that argument before. It only makes sense when tax rates are compared...you earn more you pay a higher rate. Saw this elsewhere. They worked out that you need to be earning at least $75,000 before you don't have to worry about basic things....now this was in Minnesota. I can understand in California and New York, that level will be much higher.

About taxes in general, I am not one that thinks just taxing people is the answer. There needs to be accountability and all spending needs to be monitored closely so there is little waste/fraud and such.

You'll know better about all those fees. Surely all these need to be explained.

This much I do know...asking those at the bottom to carry the bigger burden solves nothing...those at the top are not going to wilt if asked to pay a point or two more.
Click to expand...

Of course not. And no reasonable person can argue about paying a bit more right now. We're in a mess and some can help more than others. I'm not in the highest bracket but I'm in the next one down. I am by no means rich. And I am willing to help. But here's my problem, politicians (on both sides) never address spending, NEVER!! Even when they say they've cut spending, most times they are talking about cuts to the baseline increases. That's insane. So by cutting from a 7% increase to a 5% increase you've cut spending? No, you reduced the increase, not the same. I don't care how you spin it.

Spending needs to be cut.

This whole hub bub about the fiscal cliff is just plain dumb. It's distracting from the real problem. This is all about egos. Obamas and Boehner/McConnells. Dems need to be careful on this one. If they get the increases they are looking for (and they will) the average dumb American might think things will turn around but they won't. In reality these increases are symbolic, nothing more.
 
Red Dreams said:
it has been spouted by righties naturally. if implemented, it would transfer the burden directly on the most vulnerable.
Click to expand...

I've only heard it discussed by those on the right, never the left. I was wondering if there's ever been a counter-proposal to the right on this issue from the left.
 
Cali Red said:
Of course not. And no reasonable person can argue about paying a bit more right now. We're in a mess and some can help more than others. I'm not in the highest bracket but I'm in the next one down. I am by no means rich. And I am willing to help. But here's my problem, politicians (on both sides) never address spending, NEVER!! Even when they say they've cut spending, most times they are talking about cuts to the baseline increases. That's insane. So by cutting from a 7% increase to a 5% increase you've cut spending? No, you reduced the increase, not the same. I don't care how you spin it.

Spending needs to be cut.

This whole hub bub about the fiscal cliff is just plain dumb. It's distracting from the real problem. This is all about egos. Obamas and Boehner/McConnells. Dems need to be careful on this one. If they get the increases they are looking for (and they will) the average dumb American might think things will turn around but they won't. In reality these increases are symbolic, nothing more.
Click to expand...

we agree. That means both sides bringing their sacred cows to the table...excluding Social Security cause it will be totally self funded when they lift the caps. even now it is pretty sound for the next 15 to 20 years.

Medicare/Medicaid will be just fine because of Obama Care. Within 6 years we will have single payer. We probably will have some public exchange as a second tier additional coverage. Detals...I don't know. Probably need to look at other countries where it works like Australia.

Now that still leaves a whole lot of money we can look at...Defence for example. Why do we need all those bases in Europe for example? I mean...I know these politicians all are batting for who gives them money.

We need to overturn Citizens United. All elections should be public money. Individual donations...thats it.

And politically we should stop buying/borrowing from China. Give them a bill for all the intellectual property they stole. Why finance your biggest potential enemy.

Real cuts should be aimed at those who can pay...and I don't mean even people who are earning below a million even. Get rid off all the super rich loopholes and yes, increase their rates even further. They can easily pay. Increase Capital Gains taxes and Dividend should be taxed.

We can pay down the debt eventually. But do what they are doing in Europe...and yes...we will have revolution soon enough.
 
Cali, the top 1/2/5/10% whatever do indeed pay the majority share of taxes, around 50-60% of all taxes contributed. However, their collective share is dwarfed by the wealth they control at over 90%. Not really a fair comparison without that ratio in play. The "they pay the majority share in taxes" argument often fails to include that tidbit about the overall wealth.

A better view...
Rich 90% of wealth, 60% of taxes
Everyone else 10% of wealth, 40% of taxes

Btw, pay me $200k in any city and you'd see a big feckin smile on my face daily.
 
MrMarcello said:
Cali, the top 1/2/5/10% whatever do indeed pay the majority share of taxes, around 50-60% of all taxes contributed. However, their collective share is dwarfed by the wealth they control at over 90%. Not really a fair comparison without that ratio in play. The "they pay the majority share in taxes" argument often fails to include that tidbit about the overall wealth.

A better view...
Rich 90% of wealth, 60% of taxes
Everyone else 10% of wealth, 40% of taxes

Btw, pay me $200k in any city and you'd see a big feckin smile on my face daily.
Click to expand...

Comparing Wealth and taxes can be misleading, especially when talking about income taxes. but of course the point is really that the tax system should be fair.

Of course reasonable to expect people with huge wealth to have huge incomes also.
 
JustAFan said:
Comparing Wealth and taxes can be misleading, especially when talking about income taxes. but of course the point is really that the tax system should be fare.
Click to expand...

If life isn't fair, why should taxes be fair?

Rich people have way more advantages than poor people as soon as they are born.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.