Posted on 11/30/2012 5:53:20 AM PST by Kaslin
Republicans find themselves in the unenviable position of being forced to agree to raise taxes on those earning more than $200,000 (the actual cut off for those Mr. Obama refers to as "millionaires and billionaires"), or risk being blamed for a tax increase on all taxpaying Americans. They will probably agree, which means it's a politically unavoidable policy, not a good policy.
Why does Obama insist upon raising taxes? Not because he believes it will improve the economy, and not because he believes it will increase receipts to the Treasury. The proposed taxes would bring in about $80 billion a year, a trivial number compared with our 1.3 trillion deficits. Making the books balance is (obviously) not Obama's goal. In 2008, when it was pointed out to him that President Clinton's cut in the capital gains rate increased the revenue from the tax (because lower rates encouraged more transactions), Obama was unmoved. He'd still favor an increase in the capital gains rate, he explained, for the sake of "fairness." In another famous and revealing moment, he told Joe the Plumber that he prefers to "spread the wealth around."
That's his lodestar. The Washington Post waited until the election was safely behind us to run a story by Zachary Goldfarb examining the president's governing philosophy. "[B]eneath his tactical maneuvering lies a consistent and unifying principle: to use the powers of his office to shrink the growing gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else." The president, the article tells us (not that we didn't surmise this already), is determined to reduce income inequality.
The president has "an acute awareness of recent research" the Post continues, showing that the changing economy has increased the value of a college education and made it harder for those without a degree to succeed. Obama's solution? Despite budget pressures, he made a goal of having every student receive at least one year of college."
Is inequality a problem if prosperity is broadly shared? As John F. Kennedy observed, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Improving the life chances of those at the bottom should be a priority. But the way to do that is to focus on education, family structure, and expanding private sector employment, not on redistribution of income.
True to Obama's philosophy, we are pumping cash into the hands of students wishing to attend college. As the Wall Street Journal reports, "Nearly all student loans -- 93 percent of them last year -- are made directly by the government, which asks little or nothing about borrowers' ability to repay or about what sort of education they intend to pursue."
Sound familiar? It's exactly the sort of backwards thinking that, to coin a phrase, "got us into this mess." Politicians (most, but not all, Democrats) noticed that homeownership was associated with a number of social goods -- steady employment, social engagement, high test scores for children -- and decided that the homes were causing the other benefits. Make home ownership more broadly available by making mortgages easier to get, ran the logic, and everyone would benefit.
We know how that turned out. But the Democrats learned all the wrong lessons from that debacle -- fairy tales that they may actually believe about greedy Wall Street and rich Republicans. So now we are busy repeating our folly, inflating what Glenn Harlan Reynolds calls the "higher education bubble." "College is getting more expensive, a lot more expensive," Reynolds said. "At an annual growth rate of 7.4 percent a year, tuition has vastly outstripped the consumer price index of 3.8 percent. It's skyrocketed past spiraling health care increases of 5.8 percent. Even the housing bubble at its runaway peak pales in comparison."
Colleges are happy to pocket the windfall while students are being sabotaged. Half of all college graduates cannot find jobs. While homeowners could walk away from an underwater mortgage, there is no escape from student loan debt. Student loans, now in excess of $1 trillion, outstrip car loans and credit card debt, and, unlike those obligations, which are declining, continue to increase because the government is offering what seems to the unwary like a gift.
Just as the housing bubble collapse wound up increasing, rather than reducing inequality, the foolish expansion of student loan debt may hobble an entire generation with a crippling burden. Perhaps the new debtors can console themselves, as they postpone marriage and move in with their parents, that Mr. Obama "cared about the problems of people like me."
The Republican fear is unfounded for a simple reason.
They fear that if they refuse to fund Obama’s spending spree, they will be vilified in the press and punished in the next elections. Not necessarily the case.
To start with, they will get huge pressure for a month or two. But then the pressure will shift, big time, onto the Democrats, from all those reliant on the government teat. At that point, all the Democrats and MSM finger pointing will be ignored, because of the anguished cries of the 47%.
At that point, the Republicans can just retreat into their shells, leaving the Democrats to get viciously pounded. Then when the Democrats have had enough, the Republicans can extend a spending cuts olive branch.
No more money for you to waste, but you can maintain *some* spending, and you must agree to tax cuts for everybody.
At first the Democrats will bitterly refuse, but it will cause some major cracks in their dam, individual members will start to jump ship, and their party discipline will crumble.
And it will be a very, very long time until the midterm elections.
This is what happens when you let stupid people’s votes count the same as the intelligent votes.
Going by history, the Republicans will cave. Their short memories don't go as far back as 1994.
False assertion. Libs aren't concerned whether lower income Americans can benefit financially and socially, other than as a means to sell the idea. The real intent is to derive and maintain political power from the masses through institutional graft, bribery and fraud under the guise of "fairness". Even the republicans couldn't resist getting in on the scheme. When it all collapses, libs blame it on the fat cat bankers and the old rich white guys and retain power from the same financially unstable people who had no business taking on a home mortgage in the first place. There is no immediate down side for libs in this scenario.
The traditional meaning of "millionaire" was someone with $1M in assets, not someone with an annual income of $1M or more.
The Repubs could come up with an immortality elixir and they would be vilified for putting doctors and morticians out of business - no sense in worrying about it and it should serve to free them from caving even when they know it’s bad for the Nation. Sadly, they don’t care about the Nation near as much as they claim...
He can't reduce the gap by making the poor richer, so, he's just trying to make everyone poor.
Perhaps the only way to jolt people back to reality is to let Obama take us further down the road to serfdom. It is a dangerous plan because we as a nation may slip too far to come back. However, I think there will come a point when most of those who expect free health care, free birth control, free phones, free college education etc. will realize these freebies come with an awful price. When the US starts to look like the former East Germany, shoddy, drab and hopeless, but with the few inner party members enjoying the good life, they will wake up. Remember that when people in East Germany reached a point where they could not stand conditions anymore they fled and the country would have been emptied except for building the infamous wall. Maybe that is what it will take to get America back on track.
They fear that if they refuse to fund Obama’s spending spree, they will be vilified in the press and punished in the next elections. Not necessarily the case.
To start with, they will get huge pressure for a month or two. But then the pressure will shift, big time, onto the Democrats, from all those reliant on the government teat. At that point, all the Democrats and MSM finger pointing will be ignored, because of the anguished cries of the 47%.
At that point, the Republicans can just retreat into their shells, leaving the Democrats to get viciously pounded. Then when the Democrats have had enough, the Republicans can extend a spending cuts olive branch.
Well stated. The question I have is, who are the Republicans listening to? It's not apparent that they hear the voices of those they claim to represent.
For some reason, the fiscal cliff issue reminds me of that silly ditty: "There were ten in the bed and the middle one said, 'roll over, roll over!'. So they all rolled over and one fell out, then there were nine in the bed and the middle one said..."
This from the man who shamelessly lets his fellow citizens pay for his and his family's entertainment to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars a year.
And then there's all the "conventions" for sundry bureaucracies and vacays for Cabinet members, Czars, etc.
I'll bet that number comes close to the same 80 billion.
"... Despite budget pressures, he (Obama) made a goal of having every student receive at least one year of college."
This is total BS and feed-trough politicking. No one should be offered publicly funded higher schooling if proof has not been shown that the applicant has taken advantage of that which has already been provided at no cost to him/her.
For most employers, candidates who have attained competence by means of public education, with standards prevalent in -- say -- the 1950s (prior to federal intervention), would be adequately prepared for most non-professional jobs of this day.
We now have fifty years of history since government-backed student loans were instituted. These loan programs have ruined the quality of both public and private institutes, education standards, and competence of typical class-room instructors, IMHO.
We've gone from zero unpaid student loan debts and nearly all graduates able to select a choice from several offers, to 1 TRILLION negative balance, with "college graduates" unable to find jobs today -- is this misplaced compassion that has benefitted only those providing "educational services"??
(From personal experience and observation through that half-century of student "loans" theft of public funds.)
Mona’s not helping.
Obama’s not a socialist. Real socialists don’t take 20 day vacations in Hawaii. Real Socialists don’t go golfing. They’re too busy trying to implement socialism for wasteful things like vacations. Obama’s just a grifter.....a con man....a pickpocket......a loud-mouthed thief. He throws this act out of “Ohhhhhh.....be afraid of me! I might want to put you in a collective! Boo!” And the Republicans wet their pants. Is Harry Reid a socialist? How about Nancy Pelosi? Not one real socialist in the whole stupid bunch. Boehner should introduce a bill saying that the President and all nationally elected officials and all public employees in the D.C. Area have to grow and eat their own food. Man, don’t get in Pelosi’s way when she resigns and high tails it back to Frisco. See how socialist those old grifters are when they have to start pulling weeds and milking cows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.