tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5836245.post113012008276011101..comments2023-11-02T07:44:14.413-05:00Comments on Progressive Advocacy: How do we know Republicans are for the rich? Ask them.Dan Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07467295534995212259noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5836245.post-1130354420251053742005-10-26T14:20:00.000-05:002005-10-26T14:20:00.000-05:00I want to comment only on the last sentence of you...I want to comment only on the last sentence of your post: "It is so incredibly frustrating that anyone making less than fifty grand would vote for them." Presumably, then, it would make no sense for anyone making over $200K to vote Democrat. But many do. Why? Because they care about other things, like abortion rights or the environment or pacifism. It's pretty condescending to say that people who make less than $50K should care about money, and nothing else. The poor, including many blacks and hispanics, tend to be more religious and actually do care about gay marriage and abortion and all those other Rove-created "wedge" issues. Bill Clinton understood this and didn't dismiss those people. He actually took away most of their welfare and nobody complained. But the current generation of liberals seems to think straight-up Marxism is a better strategy. "You're part of a designated class! Here is what you must think and agitate for!" - CFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5836245.post-1130346655678827322005-10-26T12:10:00.000-05:002005-10-26T12:10:00.000-05:00I watched Julian Epstein on Kudlow's daily CNBC tv...I watched Julian Epstein on Kudlow's daily CNBC tv show. Epstein is a Democrat national strategist. Epstein says Democrats have to move beyond class warfare to win nationally. They have to become the party of aspiration.<BR/><BR/>I think this is true. I do not think you can turn it into us vs them, low paid vs. high paid, poor and oppressed vs. crappy authority. I think dems need a positive vision and future. They should not disparage corporate or business people. <BR/><BR/>To epstein's strategy, I would add morality: dems need to win or cut losses on "morality" on a natl level. (eg, $ for halliburton).<BR/><BR/>This will win national - Congress and presidency.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5836245.post-1130334731660372942005-10-26T08:52:00.000-05:002005-10-26T08:52:00.000-05:00But you're talking about "earned income" from a jo...But you're talking about "earned income" from a job. That's entirely the wrong approach and why people who want to become wealthy earn their income from investments which is only taxed as a capital gain at 15% if it is sold.<BR/><BR/>Also don't the top 1% pay something like 1/3 of all federal taxes received? <BR/><BR/>Under that assumption I think whatever small tax break they are given doesn't change the fact that their proportion of taxes paid is still very high (on earned income).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5836245.post-1130214484657770512005-10-24T23:28:00.000-05:002005-10-24T23:28:00.000-05:00i think the tax rate should be reduced on interest...i think the tax rate should be reduced on interest income (bank accounts, certificate of deposits) from "ordinary income" rates (eg, 35% for the top bracket) to the same rate as dividends and capital gains (either 15 or 20%).<BR/><BR/>i also think the amount of social security benefits subject to taxation should be increased for well-to-do seniors. seniors (old people) should also have social security incentives to choose fuel-efficient transportation.<BR/><BR/>the amt needs to be reformed. this is a little beyond my expertise and experience at this time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5836245.post-1130210699774419632005-10-24T22:24:00.000-05:002005-10-24T22:24:00.000-05:00Yea, pretty much. Clintons, Feinstein, Slow Joe Li...Yea, pretty much. Clintons, Feinstein, Slow Joe Liebs, Loser John Kerry, all the moderate Dems are functional republicans. Politicians crowd the middle for good reason, and the middle has gone, much to my dismay, to the right in my short 30 year lifetime. <BR/><BR/>But at least under Clinton, while the rich were getting richer faster than everyone else, everyone else was at least getting richer too. You see how that incremental difference makes all the difference when it comes to basic human decency and ethical policy?lazerlouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11764179345327895438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5836245.post-1130201020072466662005-10-24T19:43:00.000-05:002005-10-24T19:43:00.000-05:00Dan may be happy seeing the world in black and whi...Dan may be happy seeing the world in black and white partisan colors. The fact is the rich got richer during the Clinton administration as well. Those high tech stocks made lots of new millionaires and billionaires. CEO compensation zoomed upward far faster than rank--and-file salaries during the Clinton era. Does that make Clinton a Republican? BTW, it's fine with me if George Soros and other Democrat gazzillionaires pay more taxes.FightforJusticehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12047239957724028210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5836245.post-1130172793113534472005-10-24T11:53:00.000-05:002005-10-24T11:53:00.000-05:00It's a good thing the poor and meek shall inherit ...It's a good thing the poor and meek shall inherit the earth, or else all those red state cultural republicans could be seen as having been completely duped. But so long as those in the bottom 66% of wealth are, for the most part, materially satisfied, so long as their churches are getting federal money, and the government keeps advancing abortion restrictions and a foreign policy that is apolcapyptic, they don't seem to mind being screwed financially.lazerlouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11764179345327895438noreply@blogger.com