Getty Images
A couple of weeks ago, an ABC News/Washington Post offered Republicans some bad news during the ongoing debt-reduction talks: the clear majority of Americans back President Obama and oppose the GOP's ideas. Yesterday, a Quinnipiac poll showed similar results: the public trusts Democrats when it comes to the fiscal fight, and by a wide margin, want to see higher taxes on income over $250,000.
But Karl Rove, who still has a column in the Wall Street Journal, insists Republicans are on the right track anyway.
While Americans favor raising taxes on the wealthy, a Winston Group poll two weeks ago (conducted for the GOP House leadership) found just 26% of respondents agreeing that "given the state of the deficit, those making over $250,000 a year should have to pay 40% of their income in federal taxes." Some 68% disagreed.
For now, let's put aside the fact that Rove is mischaracterizing how marginal income tax rates work. Instead, let's consider the question about polling.
In this case, we have public polls, conducted by independent organizations, which show the public siding with Democrats and strongly supporting higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, returning them to the rates they paid during the Clinton era. On the other hand, Rove has a Republican poll, conducted for Republican lawmakers, that says most of the public agrees with the conservative position.
Refresh my memory: how did it work out for the GOP the last time Karl Rove urged his party to overlook independent polls and focus more on partisan polls that told Republicans what they wanted to hear?
Leave a Comment:
Karl Rove is cherry picking his sorry a$$ through life! -Kevo
No, Rove is setting a bargaining point. If the final tax rate goes to the Clinton era 39%, then that shows that the President has "compromised" because the rate isn't 40%. Then Rove can say the Republicans won.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, his machine is broke.
Or maybe, some part of the 68% agreed with me that 40% is not enough and 60% of total income is more like it.
Stupid is as stupid does !
Ignorance breeds ignorance !
Greed , well , there is no end to it !
It seems to me all this discussion and debate over a tax rate for 2% fails to define the real issue. In round numbers, we are running annual deficits of a trillion dollars. Even if the pres get what he wants, we'll only bring in 120 billion annually, still leaving a deficit of 880 billion, which just adds to the debt.
Now, to solve this, some argue we need more stimulus to increase employment. If the last stimulus is any example, this doesn't work. Look at the focus of that stimulus - tax cuts, public employment, and construction. Even if the amount were higher, It would not have been condusive to long term growth. Tax cuts, arguably do not add jobs. Sustainable public employment requires local tax revenue. Construction jobs are short term and require long lead times.
Others argue austerity is the answer. But, I don't think that is a solution either. Even if we allow sequestration to kick in, that's only another 100 billion a year.
I think we have to realize we have a new normal in the economy. Higher than past unemployment rates, lower real incomes, and unsustainable entitlement benefits, both at the federal and state levels. I come to this conclusion both be experience and observation.
On health care, my wife and I each pay medicare premiums of $100 a month to cover 80% of costs. Through my employer I pay $400 to cover 10% of costs. Even after considering all the taxes I paid since the inception of Medicare, the cost structure cannot sustain an increasingly aging population with rising medical costs.
Social security is another example of unsustainable entitlements, Again, to use my own example, and I was a 2%er. My wife worked the minimum quarters in part time work. My monthly payment is only 4x what my wife receives.
I see no other solution but to face the reality on entitlements.
Tom -- virtually everything you have written is wrong or misinformed. First, the stimulus did work, though it wasn't big enough for the job at hand. Before the stimulus took effect, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. After, job losses went steadily down until we were gaining jobs. Do you think that is a coincidence? Steve has some great graphs to illustrate this if it's not clear.
Second, construction projects are short-term (though frequently years long), construction jobs are not. Look up the labor statistics for the construction sector; those are lifelong careers, not short-term jobs. The way to get local revenue long-term is to stimulate economic recovery, which is the role of the federal government. And as for long lead times, we have massive amounts of infrastructure that has been neglected for years, and in many cases, the planning has already been done. You can see that in the graphs of how quickly the stimulus started to have an effect on jobs.
Third, this is not a "new normal." Your 2%-er perspective that all us little people should just get used to unemployment and give up on retirement is touching, but it's not backed by evidence. "I come to this conclusion both be experience and observation" translates to "I've decided it's true, but I don't have anything to back it up with." Financial crashes lead to longer slumps than business-cycle recessions, but they're not permanent.
Fourth, we don't have "unsustainable entitlements." How do you think that your getting more Social Security than your wife because you earned more has anything to do with that. The reality of Social Security is that by the most conservative estimates it can pay full benefits for thirty years, and pay 75% in perpetuity even if nothing is done. Tell me another government program that is in comparable financial shape! Cutting benefits now because otherwise we might have to cut them in the future is the definition of a non-solution to a non-problem. We can make SS solvent in perpetuity and paying full benefits just by raising the cap on earnings. This is not "unsustainable."
For Medicare, the problem isn't that Medicare costs are unsustainable, it's that health care costs are unsustainable. Medicare is far less costly than private insurance (and single-payer VA is even less costly), so by cutting Medicare or raising the eligibility age and throwing elderly people onto private insurance, you're making the problem worse, not better. The better solution is to accelerate the reforms begun with the Affordable Care Act, which are already slowing the growth of health care costs.
The thing to face reality on is taxes. Taxes are at the lowest level since 1950. We are still an extremely wealthy country; the reason that we have politicians constantly saying we "can't afford" things is that they've decided that you having more money in your pocket is more important than the government being able to pay for the things most of us think it should do. Low taxes haven't gotten us higher economic growth, nothing has trickled down; all that's happened is that the rich have gotten richer. So face reality and tell your peers to pay their share instead of telling people who depend on Social Security and Medicare that they have to "face the reality" that you won't pay to sustain the system.
@Redshift... Dude, you spelled it out perfectly, nothing else needs be said...
My only question is why are people like Warren Buffet, collecting Social Security ?...
Thank you Redshift - I read Tom's piece, and I simply didn't have the energy to engage such sophistry!
Yes, the rich have lost their way regarding our social compact! -Kevo
Redshift rocks, I think we're all tired of trying to explain ourselves, but we have to keep marching forward, there is a reason we are all trying so hard to get our points across, even if we're not fully sure ourselves what that is, we could be wrong or we could be correct.
How nice that ole Karl had to be quoted from the Murdoch Rag as opposed to the Murdoch Cesspool (Fox).
They left out "Instead of the sub-15% effective tax rate they pay currently"
Except for the fact that the first $250,000 of income is NOT subject to the increased rates, and only the amount above that would be subject to the restored marginal tax rates. Good old Turd Blossom is deliberately misstating the facts once again (why am I not surprised).
It doesn't even say that! It only says that about 68% of the respondents didn't think people who make over $250,000 should pay 40% in federal taxes. But what do those people think the rate should be? Lower? Higher?
It's an oldschool Republican "messaging" trick, the talk radio guys all use it. It's a "quiz", they word questions around most peoples ignorance of exactly what the tax rates are. Only us crazy political people know what the rates actually are, so Republicans look for people to answer thier loaded questions wrong.
Good thing they didn't ask that. If it were me, I would have gone for the Eisenhower limits (91%) or at least the St. Ronald of Alzheimer's limits (70%).
dkm, you may have something there. Seeing they idolize St. Ronnie so much, maybe the dems should give that a shot. I'd love to hear all the squeaks coming from the teapubs along with the apoplexy from the rest.
The big difference is the capital gains tax which is at 15%. Income tax will only go up 3% on those making over $250k but the capital gains tax needs to go up to 39-40%. These are the guys sitting around the pool waiting for the dividend check to arrive, like Hilton or Romney etc...it's how they get away with paying only 16% on income. That's the big unfair rip off the very wealthy get away with and it needs to stop.
Also consider that they are stashing their funds away in the cayman's to avoid paying further taxes. 18,000 businesses list as their address the same 5 story bldg. in the Cayman's...Riiiiiiiight. The revenue the treasury stands to gain from getting rid of the capital gains tax of 15% and make it equal to the income tax rate will solve our deficit problems in 10yrs.
Also, all the money spent on health care will begin to decrease astronomically after Obamacare is fully implemented bringing expenditures way down. Then we just have to work on the war profiteer's..er..a..defense spending and we be in business...yeah...that's the ticket.
What works what doesn't...what's good, what's bad for the nation doesn't matter to Boehner and company...it's only about getting their way...about gaining power and control...always. They've stopped being a constructive part of our democracy since the first Bush or after Reagan's legacy took over. A reality America must face and quit trying to compromise with failure.
BJ...
President Obama himself admits that there will be a negative effect on income to the US Treasury if capital gains taxes are raised. The only reason he wants to do it is for "fairness". that makes a lot of sense...lets implement a policy which will bring in less money and punish all of the country in order for us to be "fair".
Maybe what the US needs to do regarding the companies which incorporate in foreign countries to avoid paying US taxes is find a way to LOWER our corporate taxes and encourage them to incorporate here.
What expenditures do you think are going to go decrease dramatically under Obamacare?
just saying...
@Stormguy -- you ask
"What expenditures do you think are going to go decrease dramatically under Obamacare?"
My reply is to object the the "you" in your question. It is not me or my fellow liberals that think "that", it is the CBO in a report.
You have drunk the Kool-aid of Fox News. Just because they deny it, you believe them, no argument just repeated denial is enough to convince you.
The CBO is still a respected non-partisan source of facts. Of course ALL predictions about the future are not really "facts", but it is a fact that the CBO has made its prediction AND not retracted it.
Note to non-trolls reading this -- I'm trying to be truthful here, predictions are "just" opinions, but some are better than others.
Instead of attacking me, why cant you just answer the question? I did not say that the expenditures were or were not going to decrease, I simply asked BJ to defend a statement that he made...he did not reference the CBO.
There was nothing in my post that was inflammatory towards him, you or anyone else in any way. Yet, your knee jerk response is to make a personal attack.
just saying...
I've said this before:
Let's not forget (or let's not miss the important detail) about what the GOP is fighting against. Republicans are dead-set against Obama's income tax proposal. What exactly could have Republicans so fit to be tied?
Obama's proposal:
PAYING 4.5% MORE IN TAXES, ONLY ON THE INCOME EARNED ABOVE $250,000 (and they're still paying less taxes on the money earned on the first $250k with the rest of the middle class)
That's what they (GOP) are fighting tooth and nail for. That's what the Right Wing is COMPETELY FREAKING OUT about?
It doesn't sound like much does it? Especially for people making that much AND much, much more each year.
Well, if you make $1,250,000, it equals $45,000. For that much money you could easily add another foot or so on your next new yacht.
What aren't the Republicans discussing in their outrage over taxes?
Tax loopholes, and oh yes, more tax loopholes, and of course, offshore banking, etc...
Once more Americans are fed only crumbs of the big picture.
Cry me a friggin' river.
You make $1.25M per year and, after taxes, worst case, you take home roughly $800K (assuming you don't use trusts, off-shore accounts, or other ways to avoid paying US taxes). Compare that to the roughly $850K that they'll take home, under the current tax system. The difference being smaller and smaller as you go up in income.
I'm not going to feel bad for those guys, much less go to bat for these guys at the expense of the rest of America.
And the Repubs aren't discussing oil subsidies, big corporation tax credits, outsourcing (like Medicare Advantage), etc.
Can someone please show me on President Obama's tax return, or for that matter any other Democrat, where he did not take the tax deductions allowed to him under law? If the President, and all of the other 1% Democrats are so excited about the higher tax rates, why havent they just been paying the full amount on their returns instead of taking tax deductions?
Obama's return was 48 pages long in 2011. Why did he take a deduction for charitable contributions? why did he take a deduction for his children? Why did he take the mortgage interest deduction? Isnt that just a little bit hypocritical?
Oh, that's right...its legal to do so...and as long as you are a Democrat, its okay.
We wouldnt want our president to actually set an example and be a leader for the rest of the country.
just saying...
just saying...
Stormguy
Why didn't Romney take his full deductions on his 2011 tax return but instead rigged it so he could say he didn't pay less than 14% tax rate?
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-21/politics/35498016_1_tax-returns-tax-rate-capital-gains
just saying
just saying
Maria...good avoidance on not answering the question at hand. It is a real shame that the president of our country has wasted a great opportunity to show the rest of the country how he is willing to sacrifice for the betterment of our country during this time of economic trouble. think about it...if the President really wanted to shut the naysayers up, what better way than to show them that, than by being willing to not take deductions in the corresponding amount of what the proposed tax hikes are going to be.
Romney is allowed to do whatever he wants to do on his tax return as long as it is legal.. I admire the man for being willing to forego some of his deductions and actually paying the government more than they were really due.
The difference between the two men is that only one of them was saying that Americans should pay higher taxes because that is their "fair share". It is a shame that the one who is making that proclamation is not willing to be a true leader and show everyone that he is willing to make that sacrifice without being forced to.
just saying...
Stormguy
The only reason Romney took less deductions is because he didn't want to be caught with his pants down after saying he never paid below 14% tax rate. I bet, though I at this time can't absolutely certain, Romney file and amended return and took those extra deductions as soon as he concede the election (after he wrote the concession speech he first neglected to write. He then probably canceled the credit cards for his campaign staff) . I'm sorry he's a bit too oily for my taste.
As to President Obama he took the legal deductions he was entitled to. You seem to be okay with Romney fudging his tax returns although legally so but not President Obama who was doing openly what he was entitled to. You seem to want things both ways Stormguy. Romney not taking deductions in your eyes noble when he was just trying not to seem the two face man he is and Obama being not a good leader because he legitimately took deductions he was entitled to.
I have no problem with either one of them doing whatever they want to on their tax returns as long as it is legal. My point is that if Obama believes that the top 2% should be paying more, why doesnt he do it without being forced to?
You are real good at putting a lot of supposition out there regarding Romney without any facts to back it up.
A real leader sets an example for others to follow. Obama is showing that he is not a leader.
just saying...
Stormguy
Romney admitted that someone overpaying taxes is not qualified to become president.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-22/mitt-is-overpaying-his-taxes-for-now.html
He has three year to refile his tax return. He said he will not do. Since he was so duplicitous during his campaign I will doubt his word. He may feel he is honorable but I don't. BTW I over pay my taxes. It's so I will have enough to pay what taxes I owe and I get a refund for what I over pay. It allows me money for things like new glasses or some new for my encampment kit. So obviously I am not qualified to be president. :-)
It seems you a double standard when it comes to Romney and President Obama. Obama will be paying higher taxes next year. Romney will probably park his offshore in the Cayman Islands. He has done that is the past.
And yet you still continue to miss the point....
just saying...
And you my dear Stormguy continue to make the wrong point. Romney a failed candidate for the highest office in this country because he was a mendacious sneak. He has a high probability hides his money p to avoid paying taxes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-romney-avoid-taxes-with-swiss-bank-accounts-and-cayman-investments/2012/08/29/e4c6afc2-f18a-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html
He has been chronicled over and over again as a mendacious liar
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/mitt-romney?nvo=0&41064542|a|nu|30|1|t|a|0=12
If there was anyone not a fit leader it's Mitt Romney not President Obama.
BTW Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas however you'd like to be addressed
Maria...you are the one who brought Romney into the discussion...not me. For some reason, you have a fixation with him. And yet you still continue to avoid the fact that Obama is not a leader...surprise, surprise...another lemming walking off the cliff...
just saying...
I have been saying President Obama is a leader. You just keep ignoring that point because it doesn't fit your world view. As to lemmings look to yourself first.
And at least I gave you a Holiday greeting.
Tell you what, Karl. If you can find one American paying close to 40% federal taxes on his income next year -- just one -- we'll go easy on the tar and feathers.
I was already missing 'Ham Rove' on Colbert. He is semi-cooked and semi-boneless with no added honesty.
This morning, I saw that American Crossroads (i.e, Karl Rove) is running commercials on MSNBC during Morning Joe stating that President Obama has only offered a plan that relies mostly on higher taxes. It goes on, something to the effect of, "Call President Obama and tell him that you want a 'Balanced Plan'."
http://www.rollcall.com/news/crossroads_launches_500000_fiscal_cliff_ad_buy-219686-1.html
If I call President Obama, I will just ask him to stand strong on his proposed plan and refuse to make changes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
@Joan-I agree with you. And I would tell him the same thing! I'm sick of the GOP constantly wanting to reduce benefits on Soc Sec, Medicare, & Medicaid. They are NOT entitlements to people who have never paid any taxes, or anyone else. They are benefits that citizens have already paid thru their earnings.
Let it go, folks . . . as long as the right thinks that what they're hearing in their little echo chamber is a groundswell of support, they'll keep losing elections. Nothing wrong with that.
Agreed. Why should we disabuse them of the idea that the public supports their ideas? It makes Dems campaigns a lot easier when Republicans delude themselves that they represent the majority of voters.
@Mike-GO CUBS! (I'm from Chgo) Let the Repubs keep telling themselves their better than everyone else, makes it easy for us to stick to the facts & win elections! I don't think they have quite admitted to themselves that they lost the election yet.
We cannot "put aside" the mischaracterization of the way the marginal rates work, because that's where the whole dog lies buried, as we used to say back in the country of my origin.
If I were asked if I thought it was fair, for someone earning 250K, to pay 40% on the entire amount, I might have said "no" myself; it seems a tad excessive and it just might lower productivity and drive to work (work hard up to 150K and slack off after, why not?). But paying 40% (actually, it's thirty-nine-something isn't it? I'm not in that bracket, so I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to the exact number) on the 5K (or whatever) *above* the 250K is a different kettle of fish altogether, any way you look at it.
But you see, even professional people, college educated, doctors, etc., are going for this. It's such a leap in taxes on $255k compared to $250k that they are going to make adjustments in their business so they won't cross that $250k line and go broke. Never-mind they have more loopholes than swiss cheese so they won't even come close to paying that rate.
If the professionals actually believe this, they really need to hire a tax accountant or at least learn what marginal tax rates are, but the tax codes are so confusing and complicated for average Americans, (just call the number the government gives to answer tax questions three times with the same question and you will get three different answers), it's easy to see why a lot of Americans don't know what is going on with taxes. I don't either, but I do know I don't have the loopholes that the rich have so they pay less in taxes than people making $60k.
Revisiting his photo, the problem is more apparent. If his head gets any bigger and his collar size does not increase, he will cut off the rest of the blood flow to his brain. Auto-egotistic asphyxiation anyone?
I know the continued malfeasance of Karl Rove is article worthy, but posting his image isn't.
He looks like he should be ending all of his conversations with "Th-th-th-that's all folks!" At least he's not going for the full Porky Pig look and going pantsless.
Struggling to stay relevant. Won't make it. Plus, only struggling because his paychecks depend on it.
i concur with you and i'd even add that his paychecks fall in the top 2% and give the fact that most members of the mov't conservatives are egoistic in nature they want to keep everything they make,damn the country that made them get what they have.
Another side of this story is--the conservatives are members of a cult not a party.The cornerstone of the mov't is or at least to my understanding,People who don't belong to their side,deserve to be squashed.But they forget that Politics(war,because that's how they see this stuff)too has its laws of the physics namely the law of relativity and the uncertainty or commonly known as the law of unintended consequences.They too have poor people and elderly in their midst and to a greater extend,their wealth depends on the health of the country's Economy and to the global economy.
Keep drinking the republican Kool-aid!
Republicans: Mangling progressive taxation since 1980*
* - at least
At least Karl is a consistent lifelong moron.
As my mother always said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
When your paycheck is determined by the results your benefactor is looking for (Koch Brothers). The presence of facts and or independent analysis to the contrary have no merit.
What amazes me, and maybe I'm not seeing it like everyone else, but of all the people that want to "keep their millions" by paying nothing in taxes are the ones that were born into money. It seems to me that the people that actually worked for a living to make their millions have no problem with paying their fair share of taxes to the country that gave them the opportunity to make those millions. It seems they are also the ones that have no problem with paying fair wages and/or benefits.
The Republican Party is the party of Reagen. Not Ronald, Nancy. "Just say no" to everything and all will be well.
Rove is a joke. Election night he showed just how out of touch he is on a grand scale. The clips were hysterical, especially when Jon Stewart showed them on The Daily Show.
Rove, RumpHole Murdoch and the rest of those lunatics need to get of the Republican Fantasy Island.
Morons.
Sorry for that... Rove, Rumphole Murdoch and the rest of those lunatics need to get off of the Republican Fantasy Island.
As for his "exile" of sorts from Fox News... Do we all really think he will not be on in a while? He needs permission by producers??? Please. That windbag will be on there by the end of the month.
Also... I turn Fox News on for five minutes a day. Why? Just to see if they are doing or saying anything nasty about Democrats or the President. Keep in mind, this is any time during the day/night. Sure enough... there it is...
Two days ago they had "new questions about Benghazi"... (I just hear Lindsey Graham Cracker saying that name and cringe). Alert Alert Alert... then it says the FBI took several weeks to start their investigation. Okay... GET OVER IT! It's being taken care of... things take time. Considering the fact most of the on air "talent" are attorneys... (that in itself is really scary)... they should know that things take a while to be investigated! Journalism? Facts? Not Fox News.
Sorry to go off on a tangent...
I still like Ham Rove better.
WHY WHY WHY does anyone even listen to this washed up gasbag??? Mr. Rove should be sent to the scrap heap.He is an entirely repugnant individual, a greedhead of the first rank.So Mr. Rove take the millions you scammed off of Sheldon Adelson go buy yourself an island or something and just leave.You have done enough damage to America and the World. We do not need anymore of you!!!!!
Mr. president hold on to your nut sack and go over the imaginary "Fiscal Cliff"....
It's the only way you will get Republicans in the House to make a deal...
Let the spirit of Thelma and Louise guide you along as we soar over the cliff, Weeeeeee! Wear sunglasses and a scarf if you must but, let's go for a ride in a flying car.
Part of the Republican Party are known as RINO's (Republicans In Name Only). I have a nickname for the rest of them in light of the latest round childish games they are pulling: AINO's ( Americans In Name Only )