And other working people I should add. First and foremost. by definition his tax plan to drastically cut the taxes of the rich is by implication a tax hike for the rest of us.
If the lesson of Kansas is anything that is it.
http://wonkette.com/588677/gov-sam-brownback-only-raised-taxes-on-poors-so-it-doesnt-count-right
Think about what he did.
1. Had very large tax hikes for the rich. At this point he gave us extremist Supply Side promises-I say extremist as Sumner is a Supply Sider but said from the start they would never 'pay for themselves-that there wouldn't be a big drop in revenue.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29616
2. When there was a big revenue shortfall, he made up for the harm done by the deep tax cuts for the rich with tax hikes on the poor-higher consumption tax, etc.
This is always going to be the two step whether the latest GOP big tax cut for the rich includes at the same time tax hikes for the poor or it leads to the huge deficits that then enable the GOP to demand them or cut social spending that amounts to the same thing-a cut in government spending for those who benefited it is the same thing as a tax hike.
Jeb's tax cut plan-which he says will give us 4% GDP-have some tax cuts for the nonrich but not enough to offset those for the rich by any means.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/jeb-brings-back-his-brothers-tax-cuts.html
By definition then, a very large tax cut for the rich will by definition entail:
1. A tax hike for the nonrich
2. Spending cuts that hit the nonrich which are the same thing effectively as 1.
Now Jeb explains how he can help the black community. His response is not to give them the 'free stuff'-the exact words Mitt Romney also used in his 47% comments-that the President allegedly gives them.
"Bush pointed to his record on school choice and said that if Republicans could double their share of the black vote, they would win the swing states of Ohio and Virginia."
“Our message is one of hope and aspiration,” he said at the East Cooper Republican Women’s Club annual Shrimp Dinner. “It isn’t one of division and get in line and we’ll take care of you with free stuff. Our message is one that is uplifting — that says you can achieve earned success.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/25/morning-plum-jeb-bush-raises-the-ghost-of-mitt-free-stuff-romney/
Yes, so in other words, his plan to win the black vote is to raise their taxes-again a spending cut is the same thing as a tax hike.
I have one complaint with Greg Sargent-the author of the piece.
"By all indications, Jeb Bush really does believe this. His first big economic speech argued that Dem policies “have built a spider web that traps people in perpetual dependence,” which is a slightly less ugly formulation than Paul Ryan’s “hammock” of “dependency,” because it doesn’t imply willful participation by the “victims.”
Why is it a virtue for someone to really belielve in the bad policies they propose? Are we supposed to credit Jeb for that?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd vote for Trump giving a choice between him and Jeb. Why? Because there is at least some cause to believe that Trump may not believe some of the bad policies he's recommended.
If two candidates advocate a very bad policy like tax repressiveness but the first 'really believes it' and the second is being cynical, I'd take the second if this was my only choices.
If the lesson of Kansas is anything that is it.
http://wonkette.com/588677/gov-sam-brownback-only-raised-taxes-on-poors-so-it-doesnt-count-right
Think about what he did.
1. Had very large tax hikes for the rich. At this point he gave us extremist Supply Side promises-I say extremist as Sumner is a Supply Sider but said from the start they would never 'pay for themselves-that there wouldn't be a big drop in revenue.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29616
2. When there was a big revenue shortfall, he made up for the harm done by the deep tax cuts for the rich with tax hikes on the poor-higher consumption tax, etc.
This is always going to be the two step whether the latest GOP big tax cut for the rich includes at the same time tax hikes for the poor or it leads to the huge deficits that then enable the GOP to demand them or cut social spending that amounts to the same thing-a cut in government spending for those who benefited it is the same thing as a tax hike.
Jeb's tax cut plan-which he says will give us 4% GDP-have some tax cuts for the nonrich but not enough to offset those for the rich by any means.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/jeb-brings-back-his-brothers-tax-cuts.html
By definition then, a very large tax cut for the rich will by definition entail:
1. A tax hike for the nonrich
2. Spending cuts that hit the nonrich which are the same thing effectively as 1.
Now Jeb explains how he can help the black community. His response is not to give them the 'free stuff'-the exact words Mitt Romney also used in his 47% comments-that the President allegedly gives them.
"Bush pointed to his record on school choice and said that if Republicans could double their share of the black vote, they would win the swing states of Ohio and Virginia."
“Our message is one of hope and aspiration,” he said at the East Cooper Republican Women’s Club annual Shrimp Dinner. “It isn’t one of division and get in line and we’ll take care of you with free stuff. Our message is one that is uplifting — that says you can achieve earned success.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/25/morning-plum-jeb-bush-raises-the-ghost-of-mitt-free-stuff-romney/
Yes, so in other words, his plan to win the black vote is to raise their taxes-again a spending cut is the same thing as a tax hike.
I have one complaint with Greg Sargent-the author of the piece.
"By all indications, Jeb Bush really does believe this. His first big economic speech argued that Dem policies “have built a spider web that traps people in perpetual dependence,” which is a slightly less ugly formulation than Paul Ryan’s “hammock” of “dependency,” because it doesn’t imply willful participation by the “victims.”
Why is it a virtue for someone to really belielve in the bad policies they propose? Are we supposed to credit Jeb for that?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd vote for Trump giving a choice between him and Jeb. Why? Because there is at least some cause to believe that Trump may not believe some of the bad policies he's recommended.
If two candidates advocate a very bad policy like tax repressiveness but the first 'really believes it' and the second is being cynical, I'd take the second if this was my only choices.
The second at least has some hope of rethinking it later as they may have just advocated a bad policy for votes.
Candidate number one though is hopeless. He's a true believer in bad ideas and will never change his mind. Jeb's brother and Reagan were both true believes and stubbornly never changed their views even though dead wrong.
This was Bill Clinton's argument to the Obama campaign in 2012. There were two strategies being debated for running against Romney:
1. Portraying him as a flip flopper.
2. As a Right wing ideologue.
Clinton argued that number 2 was the better choice as if you convince voters of 1 they might just figure that he was just saying the wild Right wing things he said in the primary for votes and would govern as a centrist.
P.S. Obviously, by definition much better than even a cynic expousing the wrong policies is someone who expouses the right policies and really believes them. Hopefully I'm just stating the obvious here.
No comments:
Post a Comment