by Smitty
Wow, BHO's tax ideas sure are stinky. If only there was an alternative political party to speak of. (1/2)
— HireThisGuyIn2016 (@smitty_one_each) January 25, 2015
Such a party would require a capitalist platform. The @GOPs would be a good starting point for #Reform, but they'd have to mean it. (2/2)
— HireThisGuyIn2016 (@smitty_one_each) January 25, 2015
There must be some alternative to O and Hillary…hmmm. Hey, I just looked at your Twitter avatar and got an
http://cdn.flaticon.com/png/256/18560.png
I second the motion to hire that guy, the Republicans could and probably will do far worse.
America is about to pick up a new constituency for tax reform. When the 1040-EZ filers find out they’ll have to use the long form now solely due to OCare. Adding insult to pointless pain in the ass, many of them will owe money.
Problems:
1. GOP fear “perception” problem if they propose to do anything but tax “the rich”
2. Too mant Americans accept false reducto ad absurdum arguments: “Wanting to cut taxes means you don’t want roads, police, military, &c.”
3. Those crooks want the tax money as much as the democrats, though they want to spend it on THEIR donors
Actually there is a foolproof (literally) method for getting everyone who works to support tax reform and spending cuts. End withholding.
Expect that the GOP go along with Obama on this. Firstly – their cronies won’t be affected any more than Obama’s will. Secondly, it is sad to say, but the productive taxpayer is now in the minority of the voting population versus the people who have their hands out.
Which is precisely why that will never happen. There is a fundamental problem that Upton Sinclair identified:
So anyone that we elect to be paid through taxes will have an understandable confusion with reducing them.
That’s true but none of our elected official’s is endangered by spending cuts or tax reform except to the point they might lose the next election.
The Progressives–whether the Dems or GOP–know that by invoking ostensible punishment against the nebulous, faceless “rich,” they can camouflage all manner of theft from the middle class. The end of the stepped-up basis for inherited property is the perfect example. Sure, most people won’t have to pay an estate tax (for now–people forget that Pre-Reagan, the estate tax kicked in at high five figures), but now everybody will be paying capital gains on the stuff they get from Mom and Dad or Grandma, which were previously not taxed.
No one ever said they were rational.
Walker is gonna have to up his game. His speech in Iowa this weekend was kind of embarrassing for the first seven minutes. The rest was a sales pitch. Kind of uninspiring. He needs to speak to principles, and identify the problems. Also slow down the delivery, and get away from the monotones.
I swear I should teach a class on this stuff. It’s salesmanship 201. It’s teachable. But for some reason, few of these folks care to learn the method.
Let’s face it. Romney was right about the 47%.
That’s kind of the point of the WSJ editorial pointed at him: “Nice record, kid. Now don’t get cocky and think you can take it national without Major Help.”
I can hope. Mitt refused the honor of learning the Reagan method. When you listen to a lot of British MPs (not the Labour ones) speak, they clearly studied elocution. American politicians seem to think that’s uncool.
Yeah, I figured out when Clinton was President that all appeals to “tax the rich” were always a bait and switch. They define “rich” as anyone not living on public assistance, but the truly rich are always left a loophole. So, this will end up affecting small business owners, the middle class and highly paid blue collar workers but won’t affect the donor class.