Let’s define ‘right-wing talking point’

There’s been quite a bit of talk — perhaps, too much — about whether leading Democratic presidential candidates have been careless in using “right-wing talking points.” I’m definitely sympathetic to the concerns — Dems should be running in 2008 in such a way as to strengthen the party and progressive ideas, and using “conservative frames” as part of the discourse is counter-productive.

It’s been going on for a while, and I can think of instances in which each of the leading candidates have been guilty. In August, John Edwards was asked about his take on single-payer health care. Edwards demonized the idea, saying, “Do you think the American people want the same people who responded to Hurricane Katrina to run their health-care system?” It was an extremely dumb thing to say, and parroted “right-wing talking points.”

Around the same time, Barack Obama wanted to highlight his willingness to tell voters news they didn’t want to hear, unlike Hillary Clinton. He foolishly picked Social Security as an issue, and described the S.S. system as facing a “crisis.” We just finished the “There Is No Crisis” campaign, which made Obama’s comment both wrong, dumb, and an example of using “right-wing talking points.”

More recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, hoping to get in a cheap shot at Obama’s campaign, sent out mailings in New Hampshire and Nevada accusing Obama of embracing “a plan with a trillion dollar tax increase on America’s hard-working families,” because he’s open to raising the FICA cap. The mailing could just as easily been written by the Republican National Committee or Grover Norquist, making it a prime example of using “right-wing talking points.”

You get the idea. Now, the point to keep in mind here is that using “right-wing talking points” means more than just saying something that a conservative says about a given issue. It has to do with advancing a conservative approach/worldview. The right has a message, and Dems shouldn’t help advance it by arguing on their terms.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director, seems a little confused about this.

Greg Sargent has the story.

In an interview with me a couple of minutes ago, senior Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson claimed that Obama’s assertion this morning that Bill Clinton is fibbing about his campaign is a “right wing talking point.”

Wolfson was responding to my questions about Obama’s Good Morning America appearance this morning, in which Obama claimed that Bill has been dissembling badly about Obama campaign tactics. Obama also charged that Bill has been dissembling regularly about the Illinois Senator’s consistent opposition to the Iraq war and about Obama’s claim that the GOP has been the “party of ideas.”

“From time to time the Obama campaign has used right-wing talking points against Bill and Hillary Clinton,” Wolfson said at one point in response to questions about Obama’s appearance. Asked whether Obama’s claim that Bill is fibbing is one of them, Wolfson said: “Yes.”

No. Republicans will say, in general, that Bill Clinton is dishonest. It’s just reflexive for conservatives, like breathing. But in this case, Obama pointed specifically to something Bill Clinton said that, in reality, wasn’t true. Noting that publicly has nothing to do with “right-wing talking points.” The idea doesn’t even make any sense.

As Wolfson’s argument goes, anytime anyone points out anything that the former president said that isn’t true, they’re necessarily using “right-wing talking points.” But that’s silly — by this logic, Bill Clinton could make up outrageous charges against Obama, and Obama couldn’t respond at all without sounding like a Republican hack. It sounds like an effort to silence critics, regardless of merit.

Most of the time, I really enjoy watching an exciting primary fight between three great candidates. But once in a while, I really understand why most Americans find politics frustrating.

These campaigns need to understand that “right wing talking point” is a pejorative that is used to describe a fundamentally dishonest claim used purely and knowingly to attack an opponent or opposing idea. Not everything a political opponent will say qualifies as being a right wing talking point if absent a false and malicious intent. Wolfson is arguing that a claim that hurts his candidate’s campaign must be a right wing talking point because it landed a punch. It ain’t a right wing talking point if it is inherently true, though, it’s just politics.

  • I’m not at all sure that professionally crafted “talking points” constitute solid campaigning anymore. Maybe in the days when the daily news cycle was built around sound bites and the evening TeeVee news was the exclusive medium it worked.

    But when the internet lights up with instantaneous exchanges, when Jon Stewart can brilliantly ridicule candidates within hours of their presentation (often by simply letting their words speak for themselves), perhaps it’s time to try something else.

    Like genuine ideas and proposals for change.

  • “From time to time the Obama campaign has used right-wing talking points against Bill and Hillary Clinton,” Wolfson said at one point in response to questions about Obama’s appearance. Asked whether Obama’s claim that Bill is fibbing is one of them, Wolfson said: “Yes.”

    Well, yeah, that was an imprecise, off-the-cuff answer to that question, but Barack has said that the Republican party was “the party of ideas” over the last 20 years (or something like that) and called Ronald Regan a transformational president who he admired for how he was able to bring the country together!

    The confused left blogosphere thought it liked Barack Obama because he would be more left-wing, and Hillary was more pandering. Now it’s having to face that Barack is doing the stuff it harshly criticizes for, and it’s trying to rationalize its way out of this position, just so the hardnosed dummies who write on blogs won’t have to swtich horses.

  • Is there any chance that if you liked Barack Obama because you thought he was super-progressive-left-wing guy you were just sold on some hype that took advantage of the fact that people saw him this way because he’s a black guy?

    Time to re-think supporting Hillary.

  • It will take the left and the right to fix this mess they both created. You can not borrow your way to prosperity.Give eight hundred dollars to most tax paying Americans. They will put it in gas or buy Chinese made products. Our foolish representatives are only worried about relection. They have no economic ability.There are going to be a whole lot of broke people in the near future.Both sides do make sense once in a while (every five hundred years). Both sides are equally responsible for the current situation.

  • Criticism does not a right wing talking point make. In answer to Edwards…hell no, I wouldn’t want the same idiots who handled Katrina handling my healthcare…Fire them and get efficient and competent people to run the health care system and by all means make it “not for profit” single payer national health care. I remember when he said that and thought how dumb. He also said the same thing Pelosi says on impeachment. Just his day for being dumb.
    Obama must have been talking to republicans as they were the only ones saying SS was in trouble and it was quickly debunked. I thought why would he say that? What would make him believe that?
    Clinton knows better.
    I think Kucinich should moderate the debates…just to get them to stay focused on progressing the dem party’s agenda.
    What is amazing is that the voters I know all knew these were right wing talking points. That’s progress…more involvement by the voting public to stay informed.

  • The dynastic aspect of a Hillary Clinton presidency alone was enough to give me hives; Bill Clinton’s recent spates of public fury have reminded me all too well about the aspects of his presidency that I loathed the first time around.

    She’s using his presidency as her experience, so you can’t say he’ll have nothing to do with the job. And his ferocity alone convinces me that he has a way too personal stake in the success of her candidacy.

    Rethink? No thanks. If I’m forced to vote for her in the general I will, but that’s the most she gets from me.

  • This ties in to George Lakoff’s theories about framing – that talking about spin advances the spin on an unconcious level, even if it is consciously disagreed with or not believed.

    Along the same lines, negative attacks are effective even if not believed,
    because the subconscious reacts with the notion that where there is
    smoke, maybe there is fire.

    So much political discourse nowadays is framed by right-wing assumptions that
    progressives tend to get hypersensitive about being disadvantaged by this.

    Thus, labeling something as a “right-wing talking point” is a great way to discredit it to progressives if you can get the label to stick.

  • Swan:

    Obviously you are an ardent HRC supporter, otherwise there is no way to explain your intentional misrepresentation of what Obama said regarding Reagan. Be that as it may, I agree with your suggestion that folks should re-think supporting Hillary. I do think folks need to rethink it. If they think they are voting to reinstitute the 1990’s, I’d remind them of the old adage: You can’t step into the same stream twice.

    It’s 2008 and nothing is going to change that.

  • ***Ernest Sedgwick*** That is an out and out lie. The current situation is MOSTLY the fault of these obstructionist republicans and their corrupt (should be impeached) leader. Every single thing they have done or tried to do has ended in disaster especially their economic programs. They came into power with a huge surplus and now we have the largest deficit ever with Bush spending and borrowing more than all previous administrations combined. The war profiteering and our disastrous foreign policy is all republicans. They are NOT equally responsible and our nation is in the mess it’s in due to the republicans…period. Dems are only partially responsible.

  • Right-wing talking point defined:

    Anything you hear while listening to a Republican candidate debate.

  • That is a complete misrepresentation of what the man said. From actually reading the quotes in question, Obama was making reference to the historical significance of those to events. And by association an argument that “we” (progressives/dems/liberals) can do the same.

    Now liking what the republicans did in the 90’s or even the policies Regan implemented are irrelevant. In the mid-90’s the republicans swept into office mainly due to captivating the public with there “Contract with America”. Agree with it or not, that is exactly what happened. They styled themselves as the “Party of Ideas”. They were pushing ideas that went against conventional wisdom. Whether the ideas were good or bad, they were ideas, and they were transformative.

    None of this is revolutionary nor does it mean I supported those ideas, but pointing out that is what transpired isn’t a right wing talking point. As to the Regan comment, well if we as open-minded individuals, can’t admit that (That he did change the direction of the country, for good or for ill) then we would be just as intellectually dishonest as most of the posters here accuse conservative bloggers/hacks of being.

    I don’t think Stalin was a particularly swell guy, but saying that he didn’t have a massive impact on Russian history during the 20th century would be patently untrue.

  • Swan said, “Well, yeah, that was an imprecise, off-the-cuff answer to that question, but Barack has said that the Republican party was “the party of ideas” over the last 20 years (or something like that) and called Ronald Regan a transformational president who he admired for how he was able to bring the country together!”

    That is a complete misrepresentation of what the man said. From actually reading the quotes in question, Obama was making reference to the historical significance of those to events. And by association an argument that “we” (progressives/dems/liberals) can do the same.

    Now liking what the republicans did in the 90’s or even the policies Regan implemented are irrelevant. In the mid-90’s the republicans swept into office mainly due to captivating the public with there “Contract with America”. Agree with it or not, that is exactly what happened. They styled themselves as the “Party of Ideas”. They were pushing ideas that went against conventional wisdom. Whether the ideas were good or bad, they were ideas, and they were transformative.

    None of this is revolutionary nor does it mean I supported those ideas, but pointing out that is what transpired isn’t a right wing talking point. As to the Regan comment, well if we as open-minded individuals, can’t admit that (That he did change the direction of the country, for good or for ill) then we would be just as intellectually dishonest as most of the posters here accuse conservative bloggers/hacks of being.

    I don’t think Stalin was a particularly swell guy, but saying that he didn’t have a massive impact on Russian history during the 20th century would be patently untrue.

  • “Is there any chance that if you liked Barack Obama because you thought he was super-progressive-left-wing guy you were just sold on some hype that took advantage of the fact that people saw him this way because he’s a black guy?”
    –Swan

    No, there is not chance of that for a few reasons:

    1. His comment about “the party of ideas” is, in fact, true — that’s not to say they are/were good ideas. It is to say that the GOP managed to get their message out by using an idea (i.e. “The Culture of Life”) to frame their policies. Dems, on the other hand, just go into policy without sharing the idea behind it.

    Again, whether the idea is valid isn’t the issue. It’s the way the idea is presented was his point. And it was true.

    2. Compared to Hillary, Obama is super-progressive-left-wing guy. And their voting records prove it.

    3. His Reagan comment holds some truth — Reagan won two landslide victories, getting votes from both sides of the aisle. Like or not, he did get the country to rally around a few things, such as his plans to fight communism.

    Again, I’m not saying he was great or anything. Just stating the facts (which is all Obama did).

    4. You’ve never had to “re-think” supporting Hillary because that’s all I’ve seen you do here. Which is fine — support who you want. But to act as if you’re somehow on the fence and two comments by Barrack suddenly has you re-thinking things is disingenuous at best.

    Now, as far as “rightwing talking points” go, they can be easily defined as: a.) comments repeatedly made by many on the right; b.) comments that paint someone or something else in a negative light; c.) comments that are, 99% of the time, demontrably false.

    For example, the claim that Clinton tore apart the military and reduced American fighting power is a right wing talking point — it’s often repeated by righties, it makes Dems look weak on national security, and it’s 100% false (the reductions were actually done by Pappy Bush).

    So no, Horselover Fat, “Anything you hear while listening to a Republican candidate debate” is not automatically a rightwing talking point. A lot of it I’m sure, but not all of it.

    🙂

  • Howard Wolfson: “From time to time the Obama campaign has used right-wing talking points.”

    What this says to me is that Wolfson is an admirer of Frank Luntz. It doesn’t matter how close it is to being true, as long as it connects with the part of the brain that doesn’t think.

  • If the candidates would stop snarking at each other and start developing some progressive frames they and we would be a lot better off.

  • Mark D at 14

    “Compared to Hillary, Obama is super-progressive-left-wing guy. And their voting records prove it.”

    According to Progressive Punch, Clinton is the 29th most progressive senator.

    For comparison, Kennedy, Edward is number 28.

    Obama, Barack is the 43rd most progressive senator.

    For comparison, Lieberman, Joe is number 44

  • Steve wrote: The right has a message, and Dems shouldn’t help advance it by arguing on their terms.

    Problem is, the left has no real message. The Democratic presidential candidates are stuck with the same old failing progressive ideas and left-wing talking points that they have used for decades, and many Americans are tired of hearing them. As Lt. Gen. Russell Honoré might say, the Democrats have been “Stuck on Stupid” for decades, and it is now time for them to open their eyes to the facts.

    John Edwards was asked about his take on single-payer health care.

    His reply looked fine to me. The Government isn’t responsible for our healthcare, and should not be, since it is not capable of being so, and also since it can’t afford to do so. Healthcare is a problem, but certainly not a problem that any Government can fix.

    He foolishly picked Social Security as an issue, and described the S.S. system as facing a “crisis.”

    Social Security is and has been in a “crisis” for decades, and it’s about to become a disaster soon. W offered a fix, by gradually making it more private, but Americans refused to accept it. W asked for other suggestions then, but no politician offered any. Fact is, the Democratic Party has lied to the American people by claiming that “There Is No Crisis”, and that lie is about to ‘Bite’ America on the arse…big time.

    “a plan with a trillion dollar tax increase on America’s hard-working families”

    Like Obama, Hillary will also raise taxes, so she really has no-room-to-talk…so to speak. Tax cuts work, but the Democratic Party doesn’t want you to know that fact.

    I didn’t see National Security listed here?! Americans don’t trust the Democrats with National Security. In fact, before the surge, the Democratic leadership had claimed that we were losing or had lost the War. During the surge, they claimed it wasn’t working. After the surge, they are unusually silent about the surge and the War. Basically, the Democratic presidential candidates have no clue about National Security, and end up sticking feet in their mouths whenever they try to speak on National Security and the War.

  • The point of my comment at 3 is, why bother to write this huge post about a throw-away comments when Barack is, in fact, serving us the the right-wing talking points in huge doses?

    You’re being misleading if you title the post the way you titled it, write it like it’s a story, and then below the fold put the matter you were writing about, which turns out to be no big whoop, and something that doesn’t take away from what Barack has in fact been saying recently at all. If people just scan it, but don’t read the post, it looks like you’re saying that there is no story about Barack using right-wing talking-points (when in fact there is), and the story is the Clintons are being totally insincere.

  • Keith at 9:

    I didn’t misrepresent Obama at all regarding Regan. Notice how Keith didn’t put up a link or a quote to support his claim?

    If you look up the story you will see I was 100% accurate.

  • …Barack has said that the Republican party was “the party of ideas” over the last 20 years (or something like that) and called Ronald Regan a transformational president… -Swan

    If only you took 30 seconds every time you wrote about Obama’s quote to actually read it and try to understand it.

    Horselover Fat,

    Since you didn’t include a link in your cite, I looked it up and it looks like Hillary is ranked overall 17/99 and Barack is ranked overall 24/99. Perhaps you were looking at a single category of comparison?

    Obama:

    http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=ILIII&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=36&y=15

    Clinton:

    http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=NYI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=47&y=9

    That fits more with the narrative that they share similar opinions on issues, and it is more style and approach that separate them.

    Oh, and since you brought him up, Lieberman is ranked 47/99 overall:

    http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=CTI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=44&y=10

  • The GOP understands that myth has a subliminal effect that makes it easier to push bad policies or mislead the voting public. It is why they still try to knock FDR (unsuccesfully) and Carter (sucessfully) and canonize Reagan and to some extent Nixon. So I do find adopting their myths troubling and one of the myths that they try to Push is that Clinton ‘s presidency was all about lies and scandals even though the Reagan years had many more scandals and lies. They want public to forget that on the economy and on a lot of other objective criteria like peace and prosperity -it was one of the best presidential periods in 40 years.
    I

    Now there is of course a difference between on the one hand disagreeing with a point Clinton made or pointing out an inaccurate statement and on the other hand pushing the GOP myth. The question is whether Obama’s statements this morning crossed the line. At this point- I would say no.

    But it seems he is beginning to focus a piece of his campaign on this issue and its possible he may cross that line. And if anyone reads the boards on the internets it is clear that a lot of Obama’s supporters are buying into the false GOP myth.

    So I think Wolfson statement was aimed at trying to deal with what may be to come and what is out there rather than just Obam’s statment.

    Doesn’t mean he is right- but it makes it more understandable what he meant.

  • The problem I have with the Progressive Punch numbers (of which I’m familiar with already) is the way they tabulate their scores.

    Simply having a bunch of folks on the left voting against a bunch of folks on the right doesn’t automatically make something “progressive.”

    After all, a ton of Dems voted for the idiotic MoveOn resolution, a few of whom are labeled quite progressive by their measures.

    Granted, no system is perfect, but I still stand by my assertion given her votes on Iraq, taxes, and several other what are, IMHO, key issues.

    (Also note that this isn’t to say Obama is super-progressive, and has never labeled himself as such. And if I had a choice, Russ Feingold would be my numero uno.)

  • Seaberry @ 19:

    It appears I need to repost my proof of the error of you tax breaks for the rich ways from late last night:

    “Seaberry

    The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of “all federal income taxes”. The top 1% pay 39% of the tax burden.

    Then they clearly pay too little.

    As it turns out, in 2001, the top 1% held 40% of all financial wealth in the United States, and over 1/3 or net wealth. Per the same reference, the top 20% held 84% of the wealth.

    Since that time, the inequality of wealth distribution has gotten worse, so the top 1% likely hold an even larger percentage now.

    By this measure, the amount they pay in taxes is almost perfect: it is perfectly proportional to the wealth they hold.

    The problem is that the more wealth you have, the more you benefit from the costs of government. If I don’t own jack, it really doesn’t matter if the police protect it. If I can’t afford to drive, roads, traffic enforcement, etc. don’t contribute much to my standard of living. If I dont own stock, securities law and monetary policy dont mean much to me. And if I am not in management, the myriad ways the law favors corporations probably work against me, not for me.

    So in fact the top 1% or 25% should be paying slightly more in taxes than the percentage of the wealth they horde.”

    (In last night’s post I had live links to the source material to back this up.)

  • Horselover Fat,

    Thanks for the link. I see the difference: the cumulative link you provided by default sorts them by 07-08 scores, but on their individual pages it has the rank for lifetime scores.

    If you resort the page to lifetime scores, you get Hillary at 17 and Obama at 24, like I posted above.

  • Zeitgeist,

    Your post last night was foolish, and is even more foolish the second time around.

    I ignored it the first time around, since it was the usual Socialist/Communist talking points, but will offer a reply this time:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of “all federal income taxes”. What does that have to do with your “the top 20% held 84% of the wealth”?! Are you suggesting that the Government step in, and with drawn firearms forcibly take even more of the earnings of another whilst they pursue their “Happiness”? If so, then you should freely give me some of your money, since I am sure that I have and make less of it than you.

  • I do not comment very often but have to weigh-in against any claim that the Repubs or Reagan were ..

    THE party of IDEAS… NOT.
    Callenging conventional wisdom…NOT.

    They did offer slogans and bumper stickers and slick marketing.

    TRICKLE DOWN tax cuts was best described by Bush Senior as VOODOO Economics. If giving tax cuts to the wealthy would make everyone better off, then it should have worked well in Mexico where most of the wealth is controled by a handful of families and it should be working great in oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia but thr reality is more like Iraq under Saddam and his many places while his people needed a poorly run Oil-for Food program to avoid starvation.

    Reagan winning the Cold War and beating the Russians is another myth when the fact is that America prevailed because voters put Dems and Repubs in power from FDR to Truman to Ike to JFK to LBJ to Nixon to Ford to Carter and Dem congresses who stood up to Russia and China. It also belongs to the American tax payer who footed the bill over some 40 plus years.

    But leave it to Repubs to give all credit to their hero leader. It helps them push their desire to place power in the hands of a few at the top as superior to having power in the hands of the many.

    I can accept someone praising Reagan as a Great Communicator but the only way to move America back to the vision of our Founding Fathers and the progressive path of FDR and the New Deal is to deflate the bad ideas of the Reagan and Neocons of the past 20 years.

    One of the worst legacies of Regan was his 11th commandment = thou shall not speak badly of other Repubs. The full result is that it puts party loyalty above loyalty to country. That has led to the bitter partisianship and total cronisian of the past 15 years. It has also led to the Repubs from 2000 to 2006 giving Bush Jr a blank check on everything, new tax cuts for the rich, huge deficits and run away pork barrel spending

    Obama is ignoring 1992 and Ross Perot and the huge revolt against the Reagan/Bush deficits. It is what brought Clinton to the Oval office. It was the main attaction for the Repub congress and their Contract for America in 1994. Of course, the Repubs walked away from most of the Contract as soon as they could.

    Jim

  • So Seaberry, if taxes paid should not be in any way proportional to wealth or earnings, which seems eminently logical, on what basis should taxes be paid?

    Eye color? Who Seaberry likes and doesn’t? Everyone but you?
    Maybe the poor should pay more than the rich?

    What is possibly unreasonable about proportional taxation?

  • Zeitgeist,

    We’re really OT here. However, and once again (for the last time): The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of “all federal income taxes”.

  • Seaberry, why limit your analysis to wage earners? What percentage do the top 1 percent of all Americans pay (measured by all categories of revenue including wages, interest income, dividends, capital gains, stock options,…) What about the top 5%, 10%, …?

    And of course, these figures are useless by themselves. We’d also have to know the percentages of revenue for the corresponding income categories?

    Cherry-picked stats (wages only) do not persuade. Nor does telling us what someone paid without telling us what that someone made.

    I’ll be waiting for you to fill us in on the rest.

  • Chris,

    Top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of “all federal income taxes”. Top 50% pay 97% of “all federal income taxes”, which leaves the bottom 50% of wage earners with 3% to pay.

    Section. 8.

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

  • Seaberry,

    These statistics are no more meaningful now than they were a few minutes ago. Knowing that the top 1 percent pays 39 percent of taxes tells us nothing if we don’t know what the top 1 percent makes as a percentage of income reported.

    Again, you’re also cherry-picking by limiting your stats to “wage earners”. My 1040 has a line for wages, plus lines for interest, dividends, alimony, schedule C business income, capital gains, pensions, annuities, rental income, …

    If you have a point to make then you’d need to let us know what the top 1 percent of total income (all categories) pay AND what they bring in (as a percentage of total income reported (and the top 10 percent, etc.)

    Take all the time you need. I’ll check back.

  • Seaberry,

    You’re statistics make an illogical jump from persons to dollars, while Zeitgeist and Chris stay consistent from dollars to dollars.

    Quote whatever you want and cite (ad nauseum) whatever statistics you want, you can’t justify a logical fallacy and repetition, no matter what Fox News would like to think, doesn’t equal truth.

  • An addendum, to simplify the this for Seaberry:

    1 person earns 1 million dollars
    10 persons earn 100 thousand dollars
    100 persons earn 10 thousand dollars

    3 million total dollars are earned

    How much of the tax burden should be placed on the 1 person who earned 1 million?

    Should it be based on the percentage of the population they represent or the percentage of total income they earn?

    That single person represents only 0.9% of the population but 33.3% of total income.

    If you choose the illogical choice and base the burden on population percentages, each person is responsible for taxes equal to $27 thousand.

    Sorry poor people, looks like you better get a second and third job!

    33.3% is the logical starting point for the singular millionaire, but as Zeitgeist points out, because top earners also benefit more from governing, the fair share increases beyond that.

    It should never, under no circumstances, fall bellow 33.3% or it is unfair and places undue burden on other tax payers and results in a situation we like to call America.

  • Chris,

    Dems sure have a difficult time of understanding the facts, when those facts go against what they have been told.

    If taxable income is over – $349,700
    But not over – no limit
    The tax is: $101,469.25 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700

    The way I see it, is that the Government basically takes roughly 39-cents out of every dollar earned by the top 1% of wage earners, i.e. the very “Rich”. Is that fair and/or equal and/or “uniform”? Basically, we are allowing the Government to choose one segment of our society, and makes them pay more than the rest of us. What happens if the Government decides to add the “Yellow” segment along with the “Rich” segment, and makes them pay more in taxes than the non-Yellow and non-Rich?

    If you need any more info, here is a link: IRS

  • Seaberry,

    You inability to focus is discouraging. Once again, you’re cherry-picking by focusing exclusively on “wage earners”. In addition, you’ve just demonstrated that you’re unable to perform basic arithmetic and don’t know the first thing about federal income taxes.

    If the top federal tax rate is 35 percent, then it would be impossible for federal income taxes to reach 39 percent of a person’s income (unless you’re now including other forms of taxation with your apples-and-oranges statistics).

    And of course, 35 percent is not the rate paid on every dollar earned. A “wage earner” (in your cherry-picked scenario) in the 35 percent tax bracket also pays no income taxes on some of his wages, 10 percent on some, 15 percent on some and so on. The result would be that the effective tax rate on wages (total income tax paid divided by total income) would always be less than 35 percent.

    You have yet to support your class warfare argument with any meaningful information, but I’ll continue to check in on you if you ready to stop cherry-picking a single category of household revenue (wages) to support your assertions.

    (Pay attention to doubtful’s post…he’s trying help you out).

  • Chris,

    No need to check back in, I have nothing else to add since you have no problem with the Government choosing which segments of our society should have to pay more in taxes than other segments.

    Section. 8.

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

  • Seaberry, I suspect you wont say it straight out because it will show your true colors, which you know can be arrived at through no means but greed, but is your point in the repeated posting of Section 8 without explanation that you think the tax rate should be flat regardless of the amount of income? (That is, you favor what economists refer to as a “regressive” tax?)

    If you’d be candid about your position, it would advance the discussion.

  • Dittohead Seaberry,

    You’re clearly trying to persuade us that our tax system is progressive (the kind of tax system advocated by our common friend, Adam Smith, decades before Marx came along), but you can’t seem to back that assertion up with facts. That’s a shame.

    When you’re ready to open your small mind, sharpen your arithmetic skills and look all categories of income and not just a single cherry-picked category that would support your assertion, then you might find that our federal tax system is not the progressive system that your “conservative” (so-called) friends would have you believe.

    Best of luck!

    P.S. You’re cherry-picked clause out of the Constitution also demonstrates your lack of attention to detail. The first clause lists four categories of revenue, but the last clause only refers to three of those four categories. You might want to take another look to see which category they left out of the last clause. (hint: Taxes).

  • So does Howard Wolfson remind anybody except me of the character Chris Elliott played in There’s Something About Mary? I keep expecting to see him scrathing the big sores on his face next time I see him on television.

  • zeitgeist,

    My “true colors”?! Well, I am not greedy, if that is what you mean. I have merely pointed out that we have allowed our Government to gain more control over us than the authors of our Constitution intended. Section 8 suggests that our Government’s focus should be on “Defence and general Welfare of the United States”. It also mentions paying “Debts”, of which we have far too many unnecessary ones, IMO. It also mentions that the “Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”.

    I don’t like the “flat tax” idea, though the current Tax System certainly needs to be fixed. The more I hear about the FairTax plan, the more I like it. Closer to being a consumer tax. Most Politicians want to keep it the way it is, since the current system gives them plenty of power.

  • The problem goes beyond arguing that it is ok to label some statements a right wing talking point and not other. With the extension of this logic to justifying lying by Bill Clinton, it is becoming clear that statements must be considered on their own merit, not whether they sound like a right wing talking point. Besides, is it really wise for liberals to allow conservatives to always get away with claiming to be the party which offers more choice and less taxes?

    More on this point at Liberal Values:

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2746

  • Chris,

    Excise tax (from Wikipedia):

    In the U.S. constitutional law sense, an excise includes gift taxes, estate taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, miscellaneous excise taxes, and income taxes on any income other than income from property…

  • Maybe this article makes sense, but if a given statement statement is true, it doesn’t matter if it’s a right wing talking point. I’m not saying anybody quoted (or misquoted) above is telling the truth, but the first priority upon hearing a statement — even by a politician — should not be to politicize it, but rather to judge it for its veracity. If it’s a “right-wing talking point” that is also right, well, maybe it’s time to consider accepting it, so that we can finally begin to work together as one country instead of two harpies ripping each other to shreds.

  • I think everyone except Steve Forbes is okay with a progressive tax system.. people with lower incomes need to be able to cover the bases – food, shelter, pursuit of happiness – and people of means can still cover those bases and pay a bit more in taxes. But carry that to an extreme, e.g. the 90% top marginal tax that Kennedy cut (calling them “restrictive”), it becomes confiscatory and serves more as handcuffs on the economy. You can use the phrase “make the rich pay their share” maybe once or twice to pay for program – Obama could probably get away with it for paying for healthcare programs, for example, and elimination of the AMT, but beyond that the rich start to move money or behave in ways that avoid taxes, and revenues fall. Rates will likely revert to where they were under Bill Clinton, and I think people are cool with that if the money is well spent.

    However, where the arguments break down is what defines rich – Obama talks about lifting the FICA cap, which is in effect a 12% increase in the marginal tax rates of incomes about $97500 (you pay 6%, your employer pays 6% – which they could just as easy paid to you anyway, its cost of your employment) – a massive increase in the marginal tax rate (28% today, going to 34% out of your pocket if you ignore the employer piece). If the cap is totally eliminated, the highest marginal rates (33 and 35) move into the 40’s, and add in state income taxes, the marginal tax on higher incomes starts breaking 50%. I make a dollar and you take more than half of it, that is what I call confiscatory. And the Bush tax cuts, like it or not, weren’t just high-bracket cuts – a lot of the benefit comes for people with children in the 50-80k range, so he can’t just let them all expire without lots of bad mojo with the citizenry. Add in the AMT – which is hitting families with children in blue states (high-state-income-tax-states) – if he sticks to the Democrats “paygo” rules, he’s got to file a trillion dollars just to cover that. So he’ll raise taxes on the rich, but then all he can do is use that money to cover the AMT elimination.

    And we aren’t even talking Medicare here.. people freak out about Social Security, which is mostly funded.. or the cost of the war.. all of that pales in comparison to what Medicare is going to start costing us. We could invade Iraq 10 times over for what Medicare is going to cost.

  • Comments are closed.