http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/how-gop-can-turn-the-tables-on-obama-on-spending/article/2514983/?page=2&referrer=/politics ...."Republicans will cave on the question of raising the tax
rate for the highest-income Americans. The only question
is whether they do so before or after the government goes
over the so-called fiscal cliff.
First, many in the GOP do not believe that raising the rate
on top earners from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (the rate
before the Bush tax cuts) would seriously damage the
economy. Second, they know that most Americans
approve of higher taxes on the top bracket, and President
Obama, having campaigned and won on that platform,
seems dead-set on higher rates. Third, they fear that if the
government does go over the cliff and Democrats propose
re-lowering taxes for everyone except the highest earners,
Republicans would be in the impossible position of
resisting tax cuts for 98 percent of the country on behalf
of the top 2 percent."..... ...."A Republican offer to allow a top rate increase in exchange
for entitlement cuts would turn the spotlight on the
Democrats' entitlement dilemma. If President Obama
takes the position of many in his party -- AFL-CIO chief
Richard Trumka, for example, has written, "NO to cuts to
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and YES to fair
taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent"-- there will be no deal.
But that would not stop the Republicans from saying right
now: While we do not support raising taxes on anyone,
especially in this weak economy, we will accept the
president's top-bracket rate increase in exchange for
trillion-dollar cuts in the big three entitlement programs."....
RRD: Being a Objectivist has its perks,such as knowledge of the term "The metaphysical vs the man-made".
Metaphysical vs. Man-Made — Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical_vs_man-made.html Metaphysical: You have cancer. Man-made: You cannot get treatment because the government has decided that you are "unfit" to live. Both are facts of reality,but the former is an amoral act of nature ,while the latter is subject to human volition (i.e. Free Will) & therefore has a moral dimension. It does not have to be. It is a man-made injustice. The appropriate response is outrage at the evil men making such a determination. Another example is when we are told that the desire of the voters for entitlement spending is a "reality" ,(while the fact that we are bankrupting our country apparently is not. )
Now we are being told that the Republicans WILL cave;as if it were a fact of nature rather than a immoral decision freely made by adults. The purpose of this is to absolve those RINOS of responsibility for their actions.
But if it is a "fact" that Republicans will cave on taxes,then why is it not also a "fact" that Republicans will cave on spending?
Experience has taught us that real,actual spending cuts either never arrive or are soon reversed. What's more whether "many in the GOP" believe that raising taxes in a recession would not harm the economy or not, the fact is that IT WOULD HARM THE ECONOMY.
That brings us to the third absurdity: That Obama will cut non-defense spending;ever. What on earth leads York to think this? What in Obama's past indicates that he is anything less than a tax & spend liberal at best? (And likely something far worse) What Obama will likely do is to say "aha! Republicans concede that we should raise taxes on those who can afford to contribute more,so why are they holding the Middle-Class hostage to their mean-spirited desire to throw grandma off a cliff!"
The only thing from York's argument that will likely be adopted by the GOP establishment is the part that absolves the GOP of all responsibility. They will say :"look mainstream Republicans said that we didn't have any choice about raising taxes"...
Will they be selectively quoting him? Of course,what of it? These people don't think about the long-term consequences of the debt. They do not think about our country becoming Weimar Germany economically (with the potential danger of a strongman taking advantage of the disaster to seize power),they think of nothing, other than their re-election.
If Obama would agree to this proposal, fine. He won't,and any concessions will simply serve to embolden Obama rather than to persuade him to make concessions.
rate for the highest-income Americans. The only question
is whether they do so before or after the government goes
over the so-called fiscal cliff.
First, many in the GOP do not believe that raising the rate
on top earners from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (the rate
before the Bush tax cuts) would seriously damage the
economy. Second, they know that most Americans
approve of higher taxes on the top bracket, and President
Obama, having campaigned and won on that platform,
seems dead-set on higher rates. Third, they fear that if the
government does go over the cliff and Democrats propose
re-lowering taxes for everyone except the highest earners,
Republicans would be in the impossible position of
resisting tax cuts for 98 percent of the country on behalf
of the top 2 percent."..... ...."A Republican offer to allow a top rate increase in exchange
for entitlement cuts would turn the spotlight on the
Democrats' entitlement dilemma. If President Obama
takes the position of many in his party -- AFL-CIO chief
Richard Trumka, for example, has written, "NO to cuts to
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and YES to fair
taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent"-- there will be no deal.
But that would not stop the Republicans from saying right
now: While we do not support raising taxes on anyone,
especially in this weak economy, we will accept the
president's top-bracket rate increase in exchange for
trillion-dollar cuts in the big three entitlement programs."....
RRD: Being a Objectivist has its perks,such as knowledge of the term "The metaphysical vs the man-made".
Metaphysical vs. Man-Made — Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical_vs_man-made.html Metaphysical: You have cancer. Man-made: You cannot get treatment because the government has decided that you are "unfit" to live. Both are facts of reality,but the former is an amoral act of nature ,while the latter is subject to human volition (i.e. Free Will) & therefore has a moral dimension. It does not have to be. It is a man-made injustice. The appropriate response is outrage at the evil men making such a determination. Another example is when we are told that the desire of the voters for entitlement spending is a "reality" ,(while the fact that we are bankrupting our country apparently is not. )
Now we are being told that the Republicans WILL cave;as if it were a fact of nature rather than a immoral decision freely made by adults. The purpose of this is to absolve those RINOS of responsibility for their actions.
But if it is a "fact" that Republicans will cave on taxes,then why is it not also a "fact" that Republicans will cave on spending?
Experience has taught us that real,actual spending cuts either never arrive or are soon reversed. What's more whether "many in the GOP" believe that raising taxes in a recession would not harm the economy or not, the fact is that IT WOULD HARM THE ECONOMY.
That brings us to the third absurdity: That Obama will cut non-defense spending;ever. What on earth leads York to think this? What in Obama's past indicates that he is anything less than a tax & spend liberal at best? (And likely something far worse) What Obama will likely do is to say "aha! Republicans concede that we should raise taxes on those who can afford to contribute more,so why are they holding the Middle-Class hostage to their mean-spirited desire to throw grandma off a cliff!"
The only thing from York's argument that will likely be adopted by the GOP establishment is the part that absolves the GOP of all responsibility. They will say :"look mainstream Republicans said that we didn't have any choice about raising taxes"...
Will they be selectively quoting him? Of course,what of it? These people don't think about the long-term consequences of the debt. They do not think about our country becoming Weimar Germany economically (with the potential danger of a strongman taking advantage of the disaster to seize power),they think of nothing, other than their re-election.
If Obama would agree to this proposal, fine. He won't,and any concessions will simply serve to embolden Obama rather than to persuade him to make concessions.
No comments:
Post a Comment