Justice?

I have several friends who hold liberal beliefs and vote Democratic because they long to see “justice.”  They were overjoyed by the election of Barack Obama, because finally we would have a President (aided by a Democrat super-majority in Congress) who “gets it.”  They believed that the upper middle and upper classes had unfairly fattened themselves off the economic booms of the ’90′s and ’00′s had an obligation to share their prosperity with others who were less fortunate.  Of my friends who are well-compensated professionals, I actually had more than one tell me that they were sometimes embarrassed by their new homes, cushy salaries, generous lines of credit, and the overall easiness with which they were able to afford a very comfortable lifestyle.

They envisioned an Obama Administration that would end corruption, stop the revolving door between government service and lobbying, hold the banking and mortgage industries accountable for mortgage fraud, protect consumers from predatory lending scams, and help existing borrowers achieve a fair and equitable settlement for their indebtedness.  They envisioned a government that would protect workers and shore-up American manufacturing and industrial production.  They envisioned a government that would finally be able to deliver affordable (or, for the indigent, free) health care for all Americans.  They anticipated a level playing field, and a government whose policies empowered and benefited everyday Americans instead of corporate cronies or political allies.

So where are we today, after three and a half years of a “justice” Presidency?

US Median Income Lowest since 1995

Americans who say they are in the lower-middle or lower-class has risen from 25 percent to 32 percent in the past four years

Rich-Poor Gap Widens to Most Since 1967 as Income Falls

Food-stamp use reached a record 46.7 million people in June 2012

More Americans went on disability than found jobs in last 3 months

We’re told, with a straight face, that we should be patient because President Obama’s economic growth policies from 2009-2010 haven’t really taken effect — while the refusal of Republicans to approve more “stimulus” boondoggles in 2011 and 2012 immediately put a damper on our economic recovery.

The truth of course is that we are witnessing the first Presidential Administration in my lifetime that openly disparages entrepreneurs and small business owners.  It’s like that infamous ‘demotivational’ poster: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”  As long as business owners are being beaten, their morale – and their willingness to grow their businesses – will not improve.  And neither will our economy.

So we are left with “justice” that, instead of ‘inflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted,’ ends up schmoozing cronies, attacking and demonizing successful middle class professionals and business owners, and leaving the poor worse off than they were before.  Everyone is poorer, but it is by far the poorest who are suffering the most.  I run into people on a regular basis who had a decent job and a little money in the bank four years ago, but today are literally struggling to pay their utility bills and scrape together enough for a weekly trip to the grocery store.

Is it even possible for the government, guided by a small group of highly educated, enlightened elitists, to administer a “just” society?

I think it’s fair to say that the combination of crony corporatism, collectivist indoctrination, heavy-handed regulation, and suppression of middle class entrepreneurism favored by our current crop of leftist/progressive intellectuals is failing miserably in its goal of creating a just society.  Thankfully we have the opportunity on Nov. 4 to let them know what we really think.

Shortlink:

Posted by on September 14, 2012.
Filed under Democrats, Society.
Tagged with: .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    I agree with your diagnosis of the symptoms, but only partially agree on the cause.

    I doubt the small cadre of irrelevant leftist intellectuals are running things from their university offices.

    The cause is better found in the engine of globalism and as you say, “crony corporatism,” sucking high value-added jobs out of the United States and designed to produce a low mean equal wage throughout the world – so workers in the USA will end up being paid the same as those in Mexico (NAFTA) or India (Bangalore knowledge worker outsourcing).

    There is a small technical/managerial elite that will be floating above the global slums.

    This is your children’s future. Get used to it.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Were you aware that the growing Mexican middle class buys a ton of stuff made in the USA? A combination of quality and status symbolism.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        I wasn’t aware there was stuff made in the USA anymore. Surely you don’t mean iphone 5s made in China?

        • SCSIwuzzy

          There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Chico,
          Than are dreamt of in your philosphy.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Well really, can you give me an example of something US made that the Mexican middle class is buying?

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Google is your friend, and can give you data on things other than 45 year olds raping 11 year olds
            http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/product/enduse/exports/c2010.html

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Google, like Linux, is user friendly but discerning as to who its friends are. Chicka didn’t make the cut, obviously.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            So, presented with facts that aren’t about sodomy or zionist conspiracy…. crickets.

    • MichaelLaprarie

      Chico, what depresses me most about the Democrats is their vision for the future of America, which is distinctly two tiered – an educated, elite class that runs big corporations, big government, big entertainment, big journalism, higher ed, etc.; and a lower tier “working class” taken care of by the elites. The crony capitalism model, combining government, mega corporations, and labor unions, is the engine through which the elites plan to use government to keep the workers busy and give them just enough possessions and benefits to keep them happy.

      But the Dems have no plans to help the lower/middle classes become upper middle class (except maybe through selected admission to the educated class, through leftist-influenced universities). The definitely have no plan and no desire to help working “common” folk earn a lot of money through entrepreneurship or investment, because commoners with money pose a direct challenge to the authority and power of elites.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        1. Both parties represent elite classes. They overlap, but are somewhat different in characteristics. The Dem elite is government, academic, “creatives,” and most lawyers, some doctors. The Rep elite are financial traders/bankers, big biz managers, technicians, most small business, and some doctors. Both of these groups are within the “cognitive elite” of smarter-than-average people.

        2. Opportunities are shrinking for non-elite due to global labor market and automation of repetitive tasks. The jobs where high value added is reflected in wages are not there anymore, because corporations can export those jobs to low-wage places and keep more of the value for themselves in dividends rather than paying in wages.

        3. Unions have given up trying to organize service and remaining manufacturing sector, concentrate on government. This has kept government wages in pace with growth of economy, where private sector wages have remained flat. Unions both part of problem and part of solution.

        4. Both elites enlist different groups at the bottom for electoral success: Dems black welfare-dependent or marginally employed, Reps white welfare-dependent or marginally employed religious types.

        5. Difficult for majority of people who aren’t smart to make it anymore: can’t enter any elite due to low cognitive skills, no high-wage jobs doing repetitive tasks anymore. What is the solution for them, other than taking several low-wage part-time jobs with no benefits, government job with e.g. parks department, or welfare? Perhaps some small entrepreneurship; this should be encouraged as you say but it is inherently limited.

        6. Situation will get worse.

        • Vagabond661

          When you see that teachers in Chicago are asking for more money and benefits than the taxpayers who pay their salary, it’s hard to say they are not two tiered.

          But yeah the situation will get worse.

          • Rance Frayger

            Just out of curiosity, what are your standards for determining who should or should not be earning more than the average taxpayer? You seem to be saying that teachers shouldn’t.

          • Vagabond661

            There are many people who make more money than I do. But just like in the private sector, there should be some accountability for the money that they are paid.

            For example, A surgical doctor makes much more than I do and I don’t mind paying him/her as long as they are worth the money. However, if that doctor has the same success rate as teachers do on graduating kids who can read, I can simply take my money elsewhere and so can everyone else.

            The problem with public education is that we can’t take our tax money elsewhere and find alternative solutions.

          • TomInCali

            Why not hold your same standards to politicians? They also get more money and benefits than the taxpayers who pay their salary. Do you think they have a greater success rate than teachers and should be less accountable? Can you take your tax money elsewhere and find an alternative government?

          • Rance Frayger

            Teachers are a lot like politicians. Everybody will tell you how worthless they are, except for their own child’s teacher or their own representative, who they adore.

          • jim_m

            Bullshit. We pulled our son out of the public schools because their schools and teachers suck. I still pay my taxes to support the school system. If kids are going illiterate and uneducated it isn’t because I abandoned a failing system it is because too few people follow the same example.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Except for all of the parents that do want out of the public school systems, and the fact that politicians aren’t unionized, your point might be valid

          • Vagabond661

            Sure, if you are talking about being able to vote in or out teachers. Otherwise it ain’t the same analogy.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            “Can you take your tax money elsewhere and find an alternative government?”

            Only by emigrating.

          • TomInCali

            You’re welcome to.

          • TomInCali

            Why not hold your same standards to politicians? They also get more money and benefits than the taxpayers who pay their salary. Do you think they have a greater success rate than teachers and should be less accountable? Can you take your tax money elsewhere and find an alternative government?

          • Rance Frayger

            If you could take your money to an alternative solution, what would it be, and what percentage of the population would it leave uneducated?

          • Vagabond661

            I don’t understand your question. If I take my money to an alternative solution, how does it leave the rest of the population uneducated?

            Do you know when the current incarnation of Deptartment of Education was formed? Do you know people were actually educated before that date?

          • herddog505

            Bingo.

            In Libworld, if everybody doesn’t go to the same (sh*tty) school, then that means that people are magically going to be illiterate and ignorant. And probably starve, too.

          • jim_m

            Hey, Everyone should be earning above average. That’s what obama is promising right?

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            It’s not that teachers are overpaid, but that the average worker is underpaid.

          • Vagabond661

            Don’t lower the bridge, raise the water, eh chico?

          • TomInCali

            When you see that teachers in Chicago are asking for more money and benefits than the taxpayers who pay their salary

            Really?

            The average primary-school teacher in the United States earns about 67 percent of the salary of a average college-educated worker in the United States. …. For teachers in lower secondary school (roughly the years Americans would call middle school), the ratio in the United States is 69 percent,…. The average upper secondary teacher earns 72 percent of the salary for the average college-educated worker in the United States….

            http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/does-it-pay-to-become-a-teacher/

          • Vagabond661
          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Gilkison/1793998431 Bob Gilkison

            For what 9 months, or at the most 10 months work?

            Really, you attempt at equivalence is ludicrous.

            One of the sticking points in Chicago was a proposal that teachers work at least 7 hours/day. How many college educated professionals outside of government or Academe work 7 hours a day?

          • jim_m

            Chicago has one of the shortest school days in the nation. The city wanted to increase the school day to be closer to the average. They also wanted to increase the length of the school year to be closer to the average. These teachers are getting paid top dollar to work a short day in a short year.

          • jim_m

            In Chicago the average salary is over $70k and teachers with 10 years experience average over $100k. Considering that CPS is one of the worst school systems in the nation I don’t think they deserve the 19% raise they are demanding. Turn that around to a 19% pay cut and you’ve got it right.

  • herddog505

    Michael LaprarieIs it even possible for the government, guided by a small group of highly educated, enlightened elitists, to administer a “just” society?

    No. “Society” is too large and FAR too complex an entity to be “administered”. The Founding Fathers, as products of the Enlightenment,understood this implicitly. The rest of the world ought to have learned it from the disastrous “experiments” conducted by the communists throughout the 20th century. Alas, the impulse in man to rule other men – even “for their own good” is powerful, and men continue to explain and justify why they should.

    The tactic is almost always to point to (or, if need be, create) a villain: the rich, the bankers, the Jew moneylenders, the agents of foreign exploitation. Yessir: you’ve been done the dirty! THEY are taking advantage of you, grinding you down, oppressing you, keeping you out of your rightful place in the sun! Give me / us power, and we’ll take THEM down a notch or two! We’ll put things right! You’ll get what is yours by right that THEY have unfairly taken from you. Yep: you’ll get justice! You’ll get what’s coming to you!
    O’ course, at bottom, “justice”, “equality”, “altruism”, “Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite!”, “PEACE! BREAD! LAND!” and all the other slogans shouted by the revolutionaries, by the lightworkers, by the humble servants of the masses, turn out to be exactly that: slogans to fool the masses just long enough to get a rope around their necks. And for those who resist, there’s the Madame Guillotine, the firing squad, and the death camp. Meanwhile, the new masters live the high life… just like the old ones.

    Orwell tried to warn us…

    • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ Scribe of Slog (McGehee)

      “Society” is too large and FAR too complex an entity to be “administered”.

      This is why anyone who ever speaks of a president “running the country” needs to be clocked over the head with something heavy. The president is empowered to run one branch of one layer of the government, and rarely does a creditable job of that even when there’s a man in the office worthy of it.

      It’s always a Democrat who actually tries to “run the country” and it’s always when a Democrat is in the White House that we see op-eds asking whether America is “ungovernable.”

      Democrats fail at “running the country” because they’re the only ones damn-fool enough to try.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Gilkison/1793998431 Bob Gilkison

      Despite ever recurring evidence that it has never worked, Intellectuals and Elitists persist in their quest for Utopia. Or to put it more accurately, their attempts to impose their particular version of Utopia on the rest of us. There is one common thread in all such attempts; the elite will be in charge and the rest will make do with what they are given.

      Someone many centuries ago referred to these elites as Philosopher-Kings. Our current President thinks that person was talking about him.

      Fie!

  • Par4Course

    Obama loves the poor, that’s why he’s making so many of them. He knows that they vote Democratic, hoping the government will give them a bigger slice of the economic pie. Barry’s speeches are all about punishing/taxing the successful, which he implies will help the poor, regardless of the facts. Class warfare is everything to this administration.

  • SCSIwuzzy

    It is easier to cut the oaks down to size than to figure out how to get the maples to grow taller.

  • GarandFan

    “Is it even possible for the government, guided by a small group of
    highly educated, enlightened elitists, to administer a “just” society?”

    Sure, as long as you are one of their “friends”, and do as they say.

    The Soviets had a “just” society for 80+ years. See how well that worked out?

    • jim_m

      Communism in the Soviet Union worked great! There was no dissent. Anyone who did not toe the leftist party line was sent away to a gulag. Politicians who strayed from the party line were airbrushed out of pictures and edited out of history.

      That is the definition of paradise to the left. No dissent and your political enemies killed or in a concentration camp.

  • Olsoljer

    I was reading an article in Pravda the other day. The Russians are laughing their asses off at it, over our transition to marxism. They admitted to having tried it, with disastrous results, and don’t believe the American public is allowing it, citing themselves as proving it just doesn’t work.

  • Jeff C

    Nov 4th ? maybe Nov 6th …

    • Vagabond661

      They are splitting the days. Democrats vote on November 7th. Republicans vote on November 6th.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        I thought the Democrats were supposed to vote on the 2nd? Isn’t that what Michelle said?

        Or maybe they get to vote TWICE! Once on the 2nd, once on the 7th!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    Funny. Most of the US says that Bush is the problem with his policies along with the GOP and their obstructionism.

    Yet no mention of that here… Fancy that…

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Which article or poll are you misreading this time?
      And did you miss the transfer of power in 2009?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        Bush responsible

        Obama is winning and while pessimism is high, people blame Bush for the bad economy.

        Obama kicked in a limited stimulus. What did Republicans do? Ensure Obama is a one term president instead of helping to create jobs.

        So, what are you misreading? How Obama isn’t at fault for the 2008 financial meltdown or how obstructionist the Republicans were at helping the nation?

        • Vagabond661

          Sure because the Republicans have been in control of the Senate for the last 4 years….oh wait a minute.

          • jim_m

            Absolutely! The GOP in a minority so small hat they could not sustain a filibuster managed to steer the stimulus into the hands of dem donors who wasted the money on boondoggles like Solyndra. It’s all the fault of Boosh and the GOP!

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


            The GOP in a minority so small hat they could not sustain a filibuster managed to steer the stimulus into the hands of dem donors who wasted the money on boondoggles like Solyndra.

            The hell are you talking about? They maintained the filibuster and there were only 60 votes for two months. Further, Romney already has TWO boondoggles similar to Solyndra. Any attacks you have on Solyndra reflect right back on your failing candidate.

            And yes, it is the fault of the Republicans and their obstructionism since they’ve said no to actual job growth.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Citations? What have the Rs successfully filibustered, and what are the boondoggles where Romney pulled an Obama and gave tax payer dollars to his supporters’ failed business models?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Coming from Mitch:

            “I am amused with their comments about obstructionism,” Mr. McConnell said in an interview. “I wish we had been able to obstruct more. They were able to get the health care bill through. They were able to get the stimulus through. They were able to get the financial reform through. These were all major pieces of legislation, and if I would have had enough votes to stop them, I would have.”

            So… Obstructionism over the betterment of the nation. Great party.

          • Vagabond661

            Seriously that is your point? He named the 3 things they couldn’t obstruct and you label that as obstructionism?

            I am amused at your comments about Republican obstructionism. The things the Democratic Senate pushed thru helped the GOVERNMENT not the people. Because if it helped the people we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in economically.

            From the link you provided which by the way was from 2010:
            “While Republicans consider much of the legislation flawed and even harmful, they grudgingly concede that Democrats compiled a record perhaps unrivaled since the Great Society programs of President Lyndon B. Johnson were passed during the 89th Congress or the New Deal programs were pushed through the 73rd Congress by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.”

            Obstructed? uhm….no.

            It continues:
            “Mr. McConnell said, though, that the Democratic victories would come at a price, predicting that the party’s decision to push sweeping measures in the face of public opposition smacked of arrogance and “is sowing the seeds of their potential downfall.”

            It is true that Democrats are struggling to translate their accomplishments into popular support, and the difficulty of doing so is perplexing them.”

            Of course we know what happen. The people revolted to the Democrats arrogance which caused their landslide defeat in the 2010 elections.

            By the way, seen a budget passed by the Senate lately? No? Didn’t think so.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Here’s everything the Republicans obstructed.

            Judicial nominations, the JOBS Act, the debt ceiling debate… Everything that they could, they filibustered.

            The things the Democratic Senate pushed thru helped the GOVERNMENT not the people

            Right, obstructing pell grants helps the government…

            By the way, seen a budget passed by the Senate lately? No? Didn’t think so.

            Because Republicans will filibuster it.

          • Vagabond661

            How many times did the House vote to repeal Obamatax and how many times did the Senate approve it?

            Obstructed?

            And pick a credible source to link to.

            Show me a link where Republicans obstructed Pell Grants.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


            How many times did the House vote to repeal Obamatax and how many times did the Senate approve it?

            33. And the Senate is Democrat controlled. So they didn’t repeal Obamacare. The first time that people have had healthcare since Reagan and can be strengthened. The Republicans want to repeal it and allow the healthcare industry to become death panels once again.

            Show me a link where Republicans obstructed Pell Grants.

            That was a link that showed every last filibuster since that article was created. Here’s one of the many for the Senate filibuster of student pell grants.

            And yet, the Republican house allowed the FISA Amendments Act when it allows the NSA to spy on ALL Americans. Fancy that…

          • Vagabond661

            More recent link.
            House Panel Endorses Pell Grant Increase and Level Funds for Other Programs.

            http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/132977/

            And the FISA extended the Title VII provision which involved procedures concerning the electronic surveillance of certain persons outside the United States for foreign intelligence information purposes. hmmm outside the US. Imagine that.

            http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5949

            “The Republicans want to repeal it and allow the healthcare industry to become death panels once again.”

            Well that’s not true but you wanted the government to be the Death Panel?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            It was done at a higher rate. The Pell Grants were at 3.8% and now stand at ~6.8% because of the threat of Republican filibuster.

            And the FISA extended the Title VII provision which involved procedures concerning the electronic surveillance of certain persons outside the United States for foreign intelligence information purposes. hmmm outside the US. Imagine that.

            You’re absolutely wrong or misguided since anyone that’s been following the FISA Amendments knows that the NSA is using it to spy on Americans.

            http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/confusion-in-the-house-misunderstanding-spying-law-and-inverting-the-lessons-of-911/The Cato Institute has been studying this when there is a secret interpretation used by the NSA to spy on your emails. Further, the man who created the technology, is explaining why it’s unconstitutional but it seems you continue to want to live in your own world.

            Well that’s not true but you wanted the government to be the Death Panel?

            So if Obamacare is repealed, what will it be replaced with? Romneycare? HA!

          • Vagabond661

            anything is better than Obamatax.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Ah, so nothing at all to help others. How thoughtful. Let’s just forget the fact that Paul Ryan did the same thing in his Budget 2.0

          • Vagabond661

            Help others? By forcing them to wait in long lines? Can you say Canada?

            One of many Op-ed pieces. Enjoy:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-folly-of-obamacare/2012/06/17/gJQAf5o1jV_story.html

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            So the question once again. What will it be replaced with once it’s repealed?

          • Vagabond661

            Who said it has to be replaced?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            So you still feel that people should suffer then. Glad that’s settled.

        • SCSIwuzzy

          Reuters poll 1k people, comparing the guy that ins’t in office to the guy that is, means what for the opponent in the current race? Nothing.

          PoliticsUsa? Admitted liberal spin shop.

          Your CNN blog link? 418 days old

          Your YouTube link? So… you don’t understand the nature of a two party political system? An 8 second clip that encompasses one sentence proves what? From a political speech? And how is the clip from 2010 relevant to what happened in 2008? Did McConnell go back in time in Doc Brown’s car?

          Even by your “standards”, this is pathetic Jay. Better go back for more talking points.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Yep, we know that facts aren’t your strong suit so just acuse others of ad homs. Do carry on.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            You can’t even use ad hominem correctly.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Still nothing to add to the conversation, eh?

  • TomInCali

    They envisioned an Obama Administration that would end corruption, stop
    the revolving door between government service and lobbying, hold the
    banking and mortgage industries accountable for mortgage fraud, protect
    consumers from predatory lending scams, and help existing borrowers
    achieve a fair and equitable settlement for their indebtedness. They
    envisioned a government that would protect workers and shore-up American
    manufacturing and industrial production. They envisioned a government
    that would finally be able to deliver affordable (or, for the indigent,
    free) health care for all Americans. They anticipated a level playing
    field, and a government whose policies empowered and benefited everyday
    Americans instead of corporate cronies or political allies.

    Sorry, but I can’t find anything on your list that is objectionable. Granted that Obama failed to deliver those things, and may yet fail to do so. But just what the hell is wrong with wanting them? Is any Republican candidate offering anything remotely close to that? Are Republicans going to end corruption? Hold financial firms accountable for fraud? Protect workers? Provide affordable health care? Empower everyday Americans over corporations? Are any Republican candidates even talking about those things?

    Near as I can tell, the Republican promise is reduced to:
    1. Cut taxes for the wealthy
    2. Reduce government spending
    3. Collect underpants
    4. ?
    5. Booming economy!

    • Hank_M

      Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall Romney saying he’d cut taxes for the rich.
      Can you provide a pointer to Romney or the Repubs stating that?

      • TomInCali

        Really? That’s your response? I don’t have time to Google the myriad analyses of his proposals for you, so here’s just one to get you started.

        Although [Romney economic adviser Martin] Feldstein uses a different methodology than we did, his
        analysis reinforces our central finding about the distributional impact
        of Romney’s tax proposals: the net effect would be cutting taxes on
        households above $200,000 and thus requiring net tax increases on
        households with less income
        http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2012/0830/Romney-plan-would-cut-taxes-for-the-rich-Romney-adviser-confirms

        • herddog505

          Is this another one of those “fact checkers” that use phrases line “true but false” or “factually true but misleading”?

          Let’s look at who wrote this analysis. WSJ has this helpful discussion:

          The Tax Policy Center authors—Samuel Brown, William Gale and Adam Looney, the last a former Obama Administration economist—concluded that Mr. Romney’s tax plan was “mathematically impossible” and therefore to avoid increasing the deficit he would have to dip into the lower-income brackets for more revenue.

          But it turns out the authors made selective and speculative assumptions and even invented tax details that Mr. Romney has never endorsed. In a follow-up paper on August 16, they conceded that they were merely looking at “the broad implications” of Mr. Romney’s reform.

          Later in August, Harvard economist and Romney adviser Martin Feldstein published his own calculations in these pages. He concluded, “Since broadening the tax base would produce enough revenue to pay for cutting everyone’s tax rates, it is clear that the proposed Romney cuts wouldn’t require any middle-class tax increase, nor would they produce a net windfall for high-income taxpayers. The Tax Policy Center and others are wrong to claim otherwise.”

          In still another walkback, Messrs. Brown, Gale and Looney concede again that “both Feldstein and we use stylized reforms that could not be implemented in practice” and that the whole debate “over what is or isn’t possible”—er, the debate they started—”distracts from the more important question of what the Romney plan actually is.” [emphasis mine - hd505]

          http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444023704577649762178006578.html

          So, economists from a liberal think-tank, one of who used to work for Barry, took great liberties in “interpretting” Romney’s tax plan – even to the point of making up details – and came up with their “analysis.”

          Yeah, TOTALLY believable sources. Hey, maybe you can provide similar “evidence” that Paul Ryan wants to murder senior citizens, or that Romney murdered a steel worker’s wife.

          • TomInCali

            Ah, I was wondering if you’d bring up that WSJ rebuttal. If you read my link, you’d see that it was a takedown of Feldstein’s claims. You can’t refute that by citing Feldstein’s claims as contradicting the takedown. Here’s some clarification of that fact:

            The Wall Street Journal editorial page today hilariously, if unsurprisingly, cites Feldstein’s study as proof that Romney is right and the TPC study is “discredited.”

            http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/romney-my-magic-tax-plan-will-repeal-math.html

          • herddog505

            Let’s look at what has actually been said:

            Romney said to George Stephanopolous, “So number one, don’t reduce– or excuse me, don’t raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That’s principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.”

            http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-george-stephanopoulos-and-mitt-romney/

            Mssrs. Brown, Gale and Looney did their “analysis” and claim, “In a recent paper, we showed that any revenue-neutral tax reform that included Governor Romney’s specific tax cuts and that met his stated goal of not raising taxes on saving and investment would cut taxes for households with income above $200,000 and would therefore necessarily have to raise taxes on taxpayers below $200,000. This was true even when we considered an unrealistically progressive way of financing the specified tax reductions, and even when we accounted for economic growth and revenue feedback.”

            “Writing in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, Romney economic adviser Martin Feldstein attempts to contradict our finding. Instead, his analysis actually confirms our central result. Under the stated assumptions in Feldstein’s article, taxpayers with income between $100,000 and $200,000 would pay an average of at least $2,000 more. (Feldstein uses a different income measure than we do – see technical note at end.)” [emphasis original - hd505]

            http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2012/0830/Romney-plan-would-cut-taxes-for-the-rich-Romney-adviser-confirms

            But then we find that Brown, Gale and Looney… um… weren’t exactly playing fair.

            “The Tax Policy Center authors—Samuel Brown, William Gale and Adam Looney, the last a former Obama Administration economist—concluded that Mr. Romney’s tax plan was ‘mathematically impossible’ and therefore to avoid increasing the deficit he would have to dip into the lower-income brackets for more revenue.”

            But it turns out the authors made selective and speculative assumptions and even invented tax details that Mr. Romney has never endorsed. In a follow-up paper on August 16, they conceded that they were merely looking at ‘the broad implications’ of Mr. Romney’s reform.” [emphasis mine - hd505]

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444023704577649762178006578.html

            In summary, Romney made a general statement about the tax policies he would pursue as president. Libs shouted, “That’s impossible! We did a STUDY!” with the implications that Romney is lying. O’ course, their “study” relies upon Romney pursuing policies that Romney has not embraced or (apparently) even discussed.

            It’s easy to discredit an opponent when one can put words in his mouth, when one can claim he’s pursuing policies and programs that suit one’s OWN needs, and that’s what it seems has happened here.

            Finally, let’s remember that Looney WORKED for Barry, so he is hardly an unbiased analyst.

  • TomInCali

    So where are we today, after three and a half years of a “justice” Presidency?
    US Median Income Lowest since 1995
    Americans who say they are in the lower-middle or lower-class has risen from 25 percent to 32 percent in the past four years
    Rich-Poor Gap Widens to Most Since 1967 as Income Falls
    Food-stamp use reached a record 46.7 million people in June 2012
    More Americans went on disability than found jobs in last 3 months

    The truth of course is that we are witnessing the first Presidential Administration in my lifetime that openly disparages entrepreneurs and small business owners.

    And yet Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High. Imagine that.

    • herddog505

      Corporations and “entrepeneurs and small business owners” are not the same things.

      • jim_m

        But entrepreneurs and small business owners would aspire to be big corporations so they are just as guilty for promoting the evil system of capitalism. How dare they want to make a better life for themselves and their families. The bourgeoisie must be crushed!

  • Pingback: We Do Not Want a Return to the Policies of George W. Bush [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces