Will Class Warfare Work?

President Obama is at it again.  He wants Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for everybody but the so-called wealthy – that is, anyone making over $200,000 a year, or any family making over $250,000 a year.

Surely Mr. Obama knows that if he gets his way the new tax won’t put a dent in the deficit, his supposed reason for wanting to raise taxes on America’s top wage earners. Why not? Because it’s estimated that a tax on top wage earners would bring in about $85 billon a year.  But the federal government spends about $85 billion every 8 and a half days!  So president Obama’s latest attempt to win over the middle class by waging class warfare on the rich has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics.

Still, it’s an enticing political argument, the president is making.  Everybody wants to keep taxes at their present rate for the middle class — Democrats and Republicans — the president rightly tells us.  So why not extend those tax cuts for the middle class and let the voters decide in November which way they want to go with a tax hike on the wealthy.  If Mitt Romney wins, the voters will have said no tax hike on anybody.  If Mr. Obama wins, then he may have the clout to get his way after all.

The Republicans say that raising taxes on the so-called rich would kill any chance of creating the jobs Americans need, since the rich are the ones who create jobs.  And since small business in America creates most of our jobs, the president tries to calm our fears by telling us that his proposed tax hike on the rich would not affect 97 percent of small business owners.  But even if that number is correct, what he fails to tell us is that it’s the other three percent of small business owners who create most of the jobs.

Still, it’s worth asking:  Will class warfare work?  Are there enough independent and undecided voters out there who will be seduced by the president’s arguments?

“You’ll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public,” either P.T. Barnum or H.L Mencken said (even the experts aren’t sure which one said it).  The observation may be cynical, but either P.T. or H.L had a point.  So I’m not  at all sure the president’s latest foray in the war against the wealthy won’t work.

But a poll just released should give Republicans some hope.  A survey by the Hill newspaper in Washington says that 56 percent of likely voters believe President Obama has transformed the country in a negative way, compared with only 35 percent who think he has changed things for the better.

As you might imagine, Republicans are the most negative on the president.  Ninety-one percent of them think Mr. Obama has changed the country for the worse.  Seventy-one percent of Democrats support the president’s kind of change.

But here’s the interesting number:  one in five Democrats say they believe President Obama has changed the United States for the worse.

The Hill says, “The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks re-election this fall.”

Good news for Mitt Romney, right?

Then there’s the general state of the economy.  A measly 80,000 jobs were created last month; unemployment has stayed over eight percent during Mr. Obama’s entire term; and he presides over the weakest recovery at least since World War II.

Even better news for Romney, right?

Then why is the race neck and neck with Obama leading, according to some polls, in the crucial battleground states?  If so many Americans are unhappy with the change President Obama has brought about, if the economy is still in the doldrums, shouldn’t Romney be way out ahead?  The answer is yes and that should have Republicans worried.

It’s still early, of course.  The election is still four months off.  Anything can happen between now and Election Day.  What’s likely to happen is a few more bad jobs reports, which should hurt the president’s chances for re-election.  Unless P.T. Barnum or H.L Mencken is right about the intelligence of the American people.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • John John8399

    I AM TIRED OF THE GOVERMENT GIVING FREE MONEY TO ANY ONE WHO COMES TO THIS COUNT AND ALL THEPEOPLE WHO HAS AS MANY BABYS AS THE WANT AND WE PAY FOR THEM IT NEED TO STOP WE NEED TO FIX ALL THE FUCK UP PEOPLE IN THIS COUNT AND STOP GIVING MONEY ALL THE PEOPLE OVER SEAS TO

  • Christopher Curley

    A progressive tax code is hardly “class warfare”, as this bigot claims.The British first used this in the 14th century,and the U.S has used it for decades.President Eisenhower’s top tax bracket was 90%.Class warfare is when the filthy rich spend billions to effect elections and laws to their benefit.Bernie Goldberg is nothing but a mouthpiece for the GOP

    • James King

      The progressive tax code came into effect in 1913 because of the successful selling by an immoral president. One of your boys, W. Wilson wanted this immoral idea and got it. He was a racist and came after another immoral pres. TR. A progressive tax code is immoral. Income tax itself is immoral, making slaves out of citizens.

      Class warfare comes from commies like you. If people like you had been present with influence, America would not have been created. And your description of rich people as being “filthy” shows that you, like all of you commies ultimately want it all, just like the current pres.

      In spite of the millions of people who have positive opinions on the spending Ike did, primarily for roads, this too was the confiscation of property (money) to pay for these roads even if you didn’t want them and never used them.

      Also, there is nothing progressive about being a liberal, the true name for what many of you call, progressive. When you support the confiscation of property (money) you admit that you support slavery while speaking out against it. Just one of many ways of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

      You do not understand the concept of rights, and may even believe that individuals really do not have any rights except what the collective will allow them to have, for that is what you commies really believe. You just do not want to say so because you know it would remove you from power very quickly.

  • C.P.

    I thought initially that Republicans were finished in controlling any part of Congress or the Presidency if they did not agree with Senator Murray’s proposal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans. Now I understand a little more: it could just simply be a bill that Obama would veto. If it did work, then Obama would beat Common Sense if that term were the GOP nominee for President. America can do without either populism or socialism. No offense to my opponents.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry

    IT WILL WORK IF YOUR STUPID

  • Count_E_Limerick

    Bernie, get with the program! Remember when Charlie Rose asked Obama why he would raise taxes on the wealthy if it doesn’t seem to raise much revenue? Obama answered that still, it was a matter of basic fairness. Did you think Obama was inarticulate, or even misspoke?
    Here’s Obama’s lodestone:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681860305802821.html
    Think WSJ just has it out for BHO? Then try:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html
    They actually believe that as the wealthy get wealthier, they get a stranglehold on the economy and, by extension, the other 99% of people… who eventually descend into serfdom.
    Personally, I can see that happening in a country with 20 rich families that control 50% of the assets, not in a country with over 3,000,000 millionaires, anti-trust laws, anti-collusion laws, and lots of regular change within the lists of the wealthy.
    But Obama et al believe they’re helping the middle class by driving thousands of car dealers out of business, taking money from Chrysler bondholders and handing it to unions, taxing the wealthy even in a recession, handcuffing the oil companies, etc. They believe the ‘temporary economic lull’ is worth it since it’ll prevent serfdom down the road.
    Vote Romney for sanity’s sake!

    • James King

      I sure do agree. Good job! And keep this in mind too. In one part of what he had to say about people not creating success on their own, one phrase stands out. It is when he was talking about what he described as government creating the Internet. Maybe he doesn’t know that it was created by the Defense Dept. But in that light as he was crowning government in doing the creation of success he said in part, “what you are allowed to create,” or something very close to that. So he believes that successful business is successful because government ALLOWED it.

      So to all of you remember this. Ayn Rand wrote more than fifty years ago, “The difference between a Welfare State and a Totalitarian State is a matter of time. That time has arrived. Get ready for it if Obama wins.

  • grover

    I’ll go with Barnum

  • http://twitter.com/kevinkmac Kevin McDonald

    What will it take for Independents to see the “Emperor has no Cloths”?

  • CT

    Can there be an idea any more contemptable than one purely to create a divide?  

  • DOOM

     I find it frightening that Obama’s campaign slogan is “Betting on America.”  

    Let’s look at some of his other bets:

    Chrysler and GM: lost the US taxpayer $5 billion.

    Solyndra: Bankrupt

    “Stimulus”: Unemployment went to 8.2% and stayed there, higher than he said unemployment would go without the “stimulus.”

    For our sake, I hope Obama is betting on anyone but America.

  • Phil

    “You can never underestimate the stupidity of the of the general public.” Scott Adams, (American Cartoonist, b.1957)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Colburn/663676634 John Colburn

    I think class warfare works, except I think that the warfare is against the middle class and we’re losing.

    • James King

      Wake up! It’s against all of us, poor, middle and rich.

  • FloridaJim

    Class warfare has worked for 60 years for democrats”vote for me and I will give you housing, tax rebates, safe neighborhoods, free schools, police and fire protection,” and now so much more. We have allowed the democrats to steal our country and those who helped deserve to be in hell. 

    • James King

      Jim, it’s not just Dems. All Republicans can point to the Dems as being at fault and they would be right. But they also have to point at themselves. It’s far too big for the Dems to have stolen the country all by themselves. They had help, and they had a lot of it from the Republican Party, and it’s been going on for more than 100 years. Both of them, not just Dems, and I am really curious why so many seem to not be able to see that from both sides. Both parties are at fault and both have actively worked to sabotage our Constitution. But the sadest part of it is the refusal of both sides not to acknowledge it, along with voters who do the same thing.

      • FloridaJim

        You are absolutely correct ! I don’t believe we can dump both parties this year but we can remove Obama and Democrats and issue a warning to Republicans “do our will or you are out in 2104-2016. By acting and on our threats, something they never do, we can control congress and not kowtow to these dolts. There are not many I would keep.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry

    HOW TO SPELL OBAMA   F-R-A-U-D

  • Bbham1

    Blake GA.  I’m tired of rules regulations & new health care tax’s that are going to kill jobs & business growth here in this country. Obama’s way is just going to make us all more poor. Lets create wealth instead of redistributing wealth. If we had more statesman in this country that would be nice. Give the states more autonomy that way we can see which way is the best way.Right know more so Rep. states are balancing there budgets quicker & creating surplus & attracting more jobs. Any one with half a brain would say gee I should vote Rep. or we might end up like Calf, Greece, or France. Even England has less rules & regulations than we have. How can we compete with job killers like Obama. 

  • http://twitter.com/davekoffer Dave Koffer

    class warfare CANNOT and will NOT Eever work, PERIOD!!

  • criolle

    The kids don’t wanna hear about the broccoli … ever.
    The kids vote.

  • robin in fl

    There should come a point where people just don’t care who’s rich and who is not..I may be simple minded ,BUT,I find it all quite strange.

    I mean why would I care who’s rich.As long as I am content with myself,I would not fault a rich person.after all I learned a t a young age by seeing ‘rich’ people they can be quite unhappy at times..and envious people are so miserable and when some people get more they only want even more..there will NEVER be enough…yes,being rich may not always equate being happy..

    but there are also the rich haters that because they were lazy and poor, want what the rich have and think they deserve it without any of the hard work..those types will be just as miserable because they are just plain stupid.

    so as I look around I have come to the conclusion I just don’t care about most people.let the non productive self entitled poor ‘eat cake’..let the rich get richer and if they are happy more power to them ,but for the ones that still are not happy despite their riches,just pity them…..class warfare will and does exist.we will not change that,it will keep getting worse for many reasons…and the sad part is the same people that are miserable wanting more will be just as miserable no matter what they get. ..because like I said in the beginning ,humans are a pretty stupid lot and the world is full of them.

    I only have class envy when I watch a rerun of the Waltons and see the love like that in a poor family….but I’m simple mind, with not much money but lucky to have a my one lovely sanctuary in which I am lucky to live at with so much beauty and peace that surrounds me,I just don’t have the time or energy for envy…and I’ll take my chance and vote for the rich guy because I don’t care that he’s rich.

    • James King

      Robin, proofread what you wrote word by word.

    • James King

      Robin, read what you wrote word for word.

      • robin in fl

        i did and am happy with it :)

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3FAENBN4GWR4OIQ5PFH4GXWPPM Charlie

       Robin, you’ve said a mouthful.

      And every word is true.

      As a friend of ours once said, “I’d rather judge my wealth by the laughter around my table than the jingle in my pocket.”

      True, you need SOME money- life isn’t free, but the goal is to make the best of what you have and go forward as best you can. If you want more, work for it, think of a way (an honest one, I would hope,) to improve your situation. Go to school, learn a new trade, find a way to acquire skills. That will help.

      But the true wealth of the world can’t be measured in dollars and cents. Go learn something for YOU, not a job. Read a book you like. Invest time with your friends and family. Go for a walk in the woods or on the beach.

      Wealth is more than money, and the whining jerks that want everyone to “be the same,” to take, by force of law, more money from those that have earned it to support themselves, are the people who are broken.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5QMGGWQRZYPP3O2ZTRY47YC5CQ Ed

      The greedy CEO I work for saw to it that I, and a quota full of others, were denied our annual bonuses despite record earnings. Oh, he’s a democrat and rabid outsourcer. This Republicans are for the rich and greedy and Democrats are the fair minded ones doesn’t stand up to real scrutiny.

  • annien

    It is obvious that people who say Romney has no charisma has never been within 10 feet of him.  I happened  to see him about 12 years ago at Logan Airport and wasn’t aware that he was Gov of MA, and let me tell you, he stopped me dead in my tracks.  He is movie star good looking and had such a nice aura about him.  I know some people like ruthless, fast talking con men like Obama not me.   Obama is a fake, a clear  manufactured empty suit!!!

    • James King

      I dislike Obama and can articulate the reasons based on reason, not emotion, and I reasonably assure you that Obama is not a fake, and he is not an empty suite. He said he would fundamentally transform America when he ran, and that is what he has accomplished. He is like many of his Democrat and Republican club members a socialist. And when I read some comments like yours it further cements my belief that there is no hope for America.

      Dems think their way and Repubs the opposite. But they are two sides of the same coin. Obama wants to keep spending, and Romney has said that he would cut the rate of spending growth. He has never said he would cut spending, only the rate of growth. Both parties routinely violate the Constitution, and as long as Americans put them in office the Constitution will continue to be just an old piece of paper. Perhaps in 50 years they won’t even mention it anymore.

    • itasara

      Obama has great charisma. So What?  Has that helped this nation? I think he won on his charisma and great oration  deliverances, but what were is great qualifications or accomplishments? Those who voted for him wanted change so badly so they took a chance on him. Now I think it is time to take a chance on someone else. At least I think Mitt Romney has had more governmental experience coming in than Obama did. Maybe I am wrong,  maybe he wouldn’t  be a good president for this country, burt what do we have to lose now? Four years of a new president may be a better hedge that four years of an incumbent president who has more power in his second term.  If Mitt Romney is  rich? So what. Is Obama poor?  if a person is  not rich before   entering  the presidency what are the chances that person will not be rich when leaving the presidency? Most ex-presidents I think have done really well. I don’t know of any poor ones. Do you? On a related topic,  $250,000 yearly income does not mean one is so  rich he/she can support those who are not. Surely  he/she has done very well in life, but we don’t know each one’s personal circumstances and what he/she  may need to spend  money on-maybe the “rich” have a lot of children to care for or children who are having a lot of problems and cannot seems to make it on their own; maybe there are extenuating circumstances in their family that eat up their income. Rich people don’t usually get breaks or discounts do they?   Maybe they do give a lot away in charities or have businesses that provide jobs for others. I don’t see that they should be punished for being rich. Richness should not be a factor in determining  the presidential race. 

  • kayakbob

    I think Class Warfare has a very good chance of “winning” this November. A better chance than most of us on the right really want to admit.

    I think envy has become ingrained it our culture.  There was a time when it was about “keeping up with the Jones’s”. Now it is about “demonizing the Jones’s because they appear to have “more”than most other people.”

    Personally I think much of the envy isn’t about money at all. I think the envy – and it IS envy regardless of what label you put on it – is lashing out by fundamentally unhappy people. They see people that have “more” money and equate that with more happiness;  a better life;  whatever. All they “know” is that someone else has “it”, and they don’t. And they resent it. 

    I am not wealthy, but I don’t envy them. Maybe they acted on an idea? Maybe they had an idea that none else had? Maybe they took a chance by buying Apple at $63 a share. Or maybe they just got lucky. Good for them! Regardless of how they acquired their wealth, I certainly don’t think I should “get” any of what they have acquired, via redistribution. You know..the tax code? 

    I don’t envy the wealth of the Hollywood elite – mostly the 1% of the top 1% – which are oddly absent from the discussion when the left rails against “the 1%”.  

    I mean, really. How does someone else having less, make your life better?  (That’s not a rhetorical question)  

  • Bob Hadley

    “… it’s estimated that a tax on top wage earners would bring in about $85 billon a year. But the federal government spends about $85 billion every 8 and a half days!”

    It wasn’t long ago that O’Reilly and others at FNC  were talking as though what ailed the country was federal funds to NPR and Planned Parenthood (in addition to the plague of  the New Black Panthers).  A favorite line of  O’Reilly’s was “We can’t afford it.  The country’s broke!”

    Combined federal fundings of NPR and Planned Parenthood amounts to far less than $1 Billion dollars – an amount spent by the feds in about a half day.   Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly and others at FNC have been betting on the stupidity of a demographic of the Amercican people.  And they’re still reaping huge dividends.

    O’Reilly has indicated that he’d go along with a tax hike for the top 1% or 2% of income earners if he knew the extra revenues wouldn’t be squandered.  I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. 

    After the economy gets on firm footing, there should be a deficit reduction package consisting of revenue increases (or, as Pres. Regan craftifly termed it, “revenue enhancements”) equal budget cuts or cuts in the growth of various budgetary items, similar to Pres. Clinton’s package in 1993.

    If this were to happen and if O’Reilly sticks to his word, there’d be a lot whinning.  O’Reilly would be accused of being a turncoat.   There will also be a lot of reruns, such as the return of the doom and gloom chorus.  And maybe Rush will again offer to bet anyone $1 million that the deficit will by larger one year after the packaage passes. 

    But for now the priority should be to boost the economy. 

    • Tim Ned

      Bob, I believe OReilly has stated that he would welcome a tax increase if 1) he knew where the funds were going and 2) if there was a positive program to reduce spending and the national debt.

      I would be in the income bracket that Obama wants to tax.  I refuse and will vote against his tax increase policies until there is a serious program to reduce spending.  When I see the spending cuts,then  raise my taxes and apply it to the debt so our children are not burdened by it.

      But I believe Bob there is a very different opinion between you and me.  You seem to have faith that an out of control government can continue to manage money.  I have absolutely no faith in this government to do so what so ever.  And the ridiculous spending on programs such as Planned parenthood and NPR are excellent examples.  These are organizations that could survive very nicely on their own.  And there are thousands more taking federal funding as well.

      We have had one massive stimulus bill and as stated by Lawrence O’Donnell, the  largest tax increase in history with Obama care, and continued uncontrolled spending.  Why would anyone have any faith that programs presented by this President has one single grain of worth.

      • Bob Hadley

        Ted,

        Yes, here we apparently have at least two major differences.  First, with an ailing economy, I consider it the immediate role of the feds to stimulate the economy, i.e. to create demand.   It took the massive federal spending involved in WWII to get the country out of the Great Deprression. 

        Who else is gioing to create the necessary demand?  Affected households and individuals are tightening their belts, as they should, and are thereby decreasing demand.  Businesses also downsize when demand decreases.

        The best way to deal with the deficit and the debt is to get more people working and paying taxes and less people in need of government assistance (whether federal or state assistance).   Then the budget deficit will automatically lessen to the point where perhaps where Bernie wont consider $85 billion chicken feed :).   But this will not not happen until demand is increased. 

        The time to tighten the federal budget is when demand is increased and the economy is doing well.  Then we can move on to entitlement reform.

        Second, you say you don’t have faith in “this government” to control spending.  Is that your way of saying you don’t have faith in the Obama Administration? 

        Whatever the case, after the economy recovers, if Congress enacts a deficit reduction package of the type I outlined above, the belt tightening and the tax increase would be enforceable and would lead towards a balanced budget as long as it is crafted as to what works, not as to ideology.

        While stimulus bill and its execution had waste and mismanagement, it did save jobs and it did increase demand somewhat.  If the Republican Congess had worked with the Democrats and Pres. Obama on the stimulus bill and its execution, things might have gone better. 

        The Republican Congress would not cooperate with ANY stimulus other than tax cuts.  And I hope you realize that the one-third of the stimulus bill was tax cuts.  FNC won’t tell you that.

        In his book “Back to Work”  Pres. Clinton has some good ideas as to what will work to bring the American economy back to life both immediately and in the long run.  Ideologues of all persuasions need to get over their ideological divides.

        As for federal spending for NPR  and Planned Parenthood, my point was that the issue is political (and maybe moral), not budgetary.   

        • James King

          Nothing you said is right. Government force never creates demand. It creates a false “sense” of demand, and it is always immoral because it forces–what? A variety of things that make it appear to people like you as a demand.

          Federal spending, NPR, and Planned Parenthood. You just can’t get anymore immoral than that with one exception. Abortion. To deny a woman an abortion is second in immoral force only to murder. The key word is force. Or do you believe you and Clinton are smarter, wiser, or just plain know more than Washington and Jefferson. They would have taken someone like you to the woodshed.

          Stimulus? That is similar to early settlers who tried that utopian idea well before America was a declared state and nearly starved to death because the lack of right to their own products violated morality.

          When government works to “stimulate” the economy, that is not what they have the ability to do. The marketplace is what it is and “stimulus” will never change it. This is because people know naturally that government force (taking money from some to give to others like that evil man Robin Hood) is immoral because stealing is immoral.

          Are you one of those nuts that actually believe the Bible is about truth? If you are, it also tell you not to steal. But you don’t even understand that taking money from some people not even born to give to other people is stealing. It’s either that, or you don’t care about stealing when it fits into your utopian brain. Sad.

          • Bob Hadley

            “… do you believe you and Clinton are smarter, wiser, or just plain know more than Washington and Jefferson. They would have taken someone like you to the woodshed.”

            You obviously made that up.  There’s no way that Presidents Washington and Jefferson appointed you as their spokesman.  People who make statements like that do so out of ignorance.  Typically they know very little about the figures they invoke.  It’s almost as ignorant as those who imply that God takes sides in partisan politics.

            Your sermon above is not only afactual it’s ahistorical.  You’re obviously making up historical and economic “facts.” Government stimulus has taken the country out of bad economic times.

            Everyone, or at least most, has their own sense of personal morality.  Many had a moral objection to the invasion of Iraq.  Some see any military expenditures as immoral.  That’s why we have government.   Through elections and elected officials we decide what to impose on the populace and what not to impose. 

            As for taxation being theft, check the U. S. Constitution.  Part of the social contract is that government can tax for the common good.  What is the common good?  That’s what we have elections and elected officials for.  Duh!

            There are  certain constitutionally protected individual rights that cannot be taken away.  What is the delineanation of those individual rights?  That’s what we have courts for. Duh!

          • James King

            Everything you said is wrong, and I had a moral “and” objective reason to be against the Iraq war.

            Government stimulus has never taken the country out of bad times. Do you believe stealing is immoral? If you do, then you need to come to term with a fact–taking money from some to give to others is theft. Government never taxes for the common good, only the specific good, which is unconstitutional. Also, the reason we have government is to protect us from foreign and domestic force. I do agree with your statement that “through elections we decide what to impose on the the populace and what not to impose.” But that is not the purpose of government.

            The reference to Washington and Jefferson was meant to advise. It was not meant to be true because I certainly do not know what they would have done with you. I do know that they knew more than you.

            We do not have courts for the purpose of defining individual rights. It seems clear to me that you do not know what the purpose of government is, and I am about to tell you.

            We need government to protect dour rights from physical violence. That means the army to protect us from foreign invaders and the police to protect us from criminals. We also need the courts to protect our property. That’s it!

            However, what we have in both Republican & Democrat rule is a government that violates that standard. They use force against people who forced no one. This is done to annihilate morality by reversing its only moral purpose of protector to become a criminal using violence against the populace deprived of self-defense.

            In the nation of Washington & Jefferson, government was designed to be not a ruler, but a servant. But government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force, and this is what you seem to be for, or do not even recognize this fact. Keep this in mind. Republicans and Democrats never do anything for the common good, only the specific good. For instance…

            The current president is listed as black even though he is both black and white. He received 96% of the black vote. I think you are probably glad about that and may even say that Obama has beaten racism. If he has I am glad, because I have fought it for most of my life beginning at age 10, and I am now 73. But what would you say about this? What if Romney gets 96% of the white vote? Would you then say it was racist?

            The purpose of that question is to interject Objectivism into the debate. I don’t know what your rational answer would be, but I am certain there are individuals who would be comfortable saying the Romney vote was racism.

            You, sir, like many of your left-leaning buddies are as clueless as many of the right-leaning people I think you despise. What I mean is that you do not understand Objectivism, and you do not understand the American Constitution.

            Do you believe America is a democracy? If you do, do you say “and to the democracy” when you recite the Pledge?

            A democracy is majority rule. The founders made America a nation that is not supposed to be a majority rule country with several undemocratic parts to the Constitution, beginning with the Electoral College. Are you for getting rid of the Electoral College? Many of your stripe are, because they want an immoral government, i.e. a majority rule country as long as their favorites are in power.

            Though I was against the Eisenhower thrust to tax for expressways, it was for the common good. I am for private ownership of all of America including roads and national parks.

            You need to go back to schood and learn what the founders created. Its demise began in earnest with Teddy Roosevelt and has now gotten to comrade Obama. Sad.

          • Bob Hadley

            “Government never taxes for the common good, only the specific good, which is unconstitutional. ”

            “Though I was against the Eisenhower thrust to tax for expressways, it was for the common good. I am for private ownership of all of America including roads and national parks.”

            “That means the army to protect us from foreign invaders and the police to protect us from criminals. We also need the courts to protect our property. That’s it!”

            Huh???  Government never taxes for the common good, but Eisenhower’s (i.e. the federal government’s) highway tax was for the common good??????????

            The federal government has an array of authorities and duties.  That which the feds do not have and are not reserved for indiduals is granted to the state governments.   Read the U. S. Constitution again, along with all amendments.

            With all due respect sir, you need to learn the difference between opinion and statement of fact, between statement of fact and actual fact and between intelligent generalization and prejudice.  These are some of the critical thinking tools  that our secondary schools should teach. 
            As for our form of government, it is a democratic republic.   Read our amendments.   Some of them mmake our nation more democratic.  Most  elections are based on majority votes.   BTW did you know that the Pledge of Allegance was originally written by a socialist?

            You were the one who brought race into this discussion, not me.  Race might be your hang-up, but it’s not mine.  When you talk to me you need to address what i say, not what others say.

          • Bob Hadley

            One more point, and again with all due respect, your interpretation or opinion of the U. S. Constitution, together with a dollar, will buy you a cup of coffee.  It’s the courts interpretations that matter.  It’s in the U. S. Constitution

        • Tim Ned

          Bob, one-third of the stimulus was not tax cuts.  It was rebates, kick backs, and deductions.  There is major difference between tax cuts and those included in the stimulus.  MSNBC won’t tell you this.

          The issue on NPR and Planned Parenthood, by the way I support both, is not political, it’s logical.  They don’t need it.  They could makeup the loss in federal funding in a heart beat.  Nobody spends $25k on house windows to get a federal kickback of $1500.00.  This government believes in such silly programs.  The only people buying electric cars are those in upper income brackets who buy to get the kickback.  No kickback, and they buy another car.

          Ronald Reagan shot for a 10 percent deduction in federal spending and he achieved just about that full amount in one year.  And no one in the private sector felt one ounce of impact from those cuts.  It was one of the foundations for the recovery.  He deficit spent in the military that directly impacted the private sector.  The massive spending you spoke about during WWII was placed into the private sector, not into welfare.  Many believe that FDR extended the depression due to his welfare spending.  Federal grants to states, schools, other pet projects of politicians are not stimulus programs.  They are wasteful spending.

          Building bridges, electrical grids, and other infrastructures employs people.  Not the programs this president and his congress put forth in the stimulus.  We have federal infrastructures they could concentrate on, not passing the money to the states to which they wasted.  In this state, I have seen those stimulus dollars go to waste.

          The stimulus was a congressional wish list never directed by this president.  He went to congress asked them to put a bill on his desk and he signed it.  Every pet project was included in that bill.

          President Clinton and Ronald Reagan would have never so recklessly given congress that discretionary power.

          You are right, I have no faith in President Obama.  But I also lost faith in the republican party when they had the power to do something.  And they did nothing.

          • Bob Hadley

            “Building bridges, electrical grids, and other infrastructures employs people. Not the programs this president and his congress put forth in the stimulus. We have federal infrastructures they could concentrate on, not passing the money to the states to which they wasted. ”

            I think we have more agreement than I thought.  It’s too bad the Republican Congress didn’t act as though they thought that way.  If they had played an active role with the Democratic Congress and with Pres.  Obama, the stimulus package may well have been more constructive and more constructively executed.

            Instead the Republican Congress played the obstructionist role.  They sang a refrain of across-the-board tax cuts and deregulation but no actual federal spending.  If they went had gone along with a public works program, things may well have been different. 

            But, even such as it was, the stimulus program did do a fair amount of good.  In many cases, the states used stimulus money constructively. 

            Only the federal government can reduce the deficit and lower the nation’s debt.  If you have no faith in government to do these things, then you see this nation approaching a dead-end. 

            Read pres. Clinton’s “Back to Work.”  It’s short and a quick read.  It’s also full of many practical measures the government can take to get us out of this mess.  In his book, pres. Clinton focuses on what works, not on ideology. 

          • Tim Ned

            Bob, I ordered Clinton’s book when it came out an I haven’t had the time to will read it.  However, every step the Republicans took in the health care bill and the stimulus, were blocked by a Democratic majority.  I have personally spoken to Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachman about this.  This was the start of the class warfare.  Both were designed, launched, and executed as partisan efforts and that’s what we ended up with.  This is President Obama and then Speaker Pelosi.

          • Bob Hadley

            Of course Reps Bachman and Ryan are going to give you the party line!  Can you imagine them telling you anything else?  Can you guess what Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi will tell you?

            Bachman and Ryan are ideolgues.  On Meet the Press, Ryan said that any kind of government stimulus is a “sugar high.”  Amusingly enough, when Chris Wallace presented Ryan with a birthday cake on Fox News Sunday during the same time period, Ryan said that he doesn’t eat sugar.  :)

            But look at reality.  If Senate and House Republicans announced that they wanted to enact a public works program to bolster our infrastructure and to boost our economy, the Democrats and Pres. Obama would have no choice but to includ them.

            The stimulus would have been designed, launched and exectued in a more bi-partisan and effective way.

            But, truth be told, many of the Republicans were beholden to the ideology expressed by Rep. Ryan against any government stimulus and others simply wanted to stymie Pres. Obama.

            And don’t fool yuorself, there’s no way the Republican Congress would support any comprehensive health insurance reform law.  Remember when Speaker Boehner came forward at a press briefing with an “alternative” to Obamacare?  It was about 15 pages of stated principles, not a plan – comprehensive or otherwise. 

            When reporters kept asking Speaker Boehner where the plan was, he looked as though he was trying not to laugh. 

            Senate Republicans came up with a comprehensive health care reform law in the early to mid 1990′s as an alternative to Hillarycare.  Incidentally, this proposed law included an individual madate.  As soon as Hillarycare was defeated, the proposal disappeared. 

            As it was, many Democrats said President Obama, in his undying optimism that Republicans would dance with him, sold out on both the healthh care law (by not including a public option) and the stimulus (by being too small and by including too many tax cuts, or as you would say tax deductions, etc.)

  • Jenna

    I find that all these ‘surveys’ and ‘polls’ are of registered voters. Who cares about them. We care about likely voters. And I think independents will likely NOT vote for Obama this time. I think they’ve smartened up.

  • Marian

    It’s just propaganda. President gaining support mont by month n, butot only from Independents , but from Supreme Court Of US on both latest contravential cases on Immigration in Arizona (what it’s lost on wild Brower side) and alap on The Health Care Law(what GOP cannot swaloved, respect Majority Republicans Judges elected to Supreme court) and Look what House still wasting Taxpayer money ans time with repelling again .
    You right, don’t underestimate Americans Inteligence.Intelligence.

  • Dan McVicker

    The answer to your last question Mr. Goldberg, is that Mr. Romney has the charisma of a boil. You would think after the last four years the Attila the Hun would be crushing the Smiler in Chief in the polls. Get ready for a second term. The GOP has already given this one away. 

  • Drew Page

    Bernie  –  The race is neck and neck because Romney isn’t running.   The only ads I’ve seen on TV in the past few weeks have been Obama’s.    I don’t understand why Romney hasn’t come out swinging?   Does he think that merely not being Obama is good enough to get him elected?    Obama and Justice roberts have just given him plenty of ammunition.    Obamacare’s mandate will be funded via TAXES and the middle class will be paying the vast majority of those taxes.  Obama is on TV everyday telling the public he wants to preserve the bush tax cuts for the middle tax.   Romney should be saying, “Mr. President, if you want to preserve tax cuts for the middle class, but how can you justify hitting the middle class with the new taxes it will take to pay for Obamacare?”

    Whether Romney wants to acknowledge this or not, he is in for a dog fight.   If he wants to win he better start showing some teeth.

    • Bob Hadley

      ” Romney should be saying, ‘Mr. President, if you want to preserve tax cuts for the middle class, but how can you justify hitting the middle class with the new taxes it will take to pay for Obamacare?’”

      To which Pres. Obama might reply, “You touted Romneycare as your signature achievemant as governor of Mass.  You touted the Romneycare mandate as enforcing personal responsibilty for the residents of Mass.  Gov. Romney, are you now telling the American people that Romneycare is a boondoggle and a tax hike for the middle class residents of the great state of Mass.?”

      Gov. Romeny put himself in a box, in more ways than one.

  • Vowel_Movement

    One of main thrust of Obama’s Callithumpian administration’s false predilection is to be totally involved in the aberration and the abomination of supporting 
     with the financial sequestration of our military, which is nothing less than defenestration through castration of our Nations ability to defend itself. This, with all of my frustration, I know to be his main intention, i.e., to bring derision
    to America, forcing her to her knees through a well planned deterioration of our moral fiber and his ill intended Marxist subjugation.

    • Drew Page

      Wow.   Callithumpiam?  Financial sequestration?   Defenestration through castration?  

      Your communication’s penetration seems to be a compilation of obfuscation.

  • James King

    Of course it will work. It’s been working for more than 100 years. Electing Romney will only slow it down a bit because the evidence is that politicians of all stripes have found that Americans are not smart enough to see that the pols are buying citizen votes with their own money. The US government is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever invented.

    Those of you out there who think Romney will save the day may be right. But the save will be only for a fleeting moment. People still think that Americans were made to work in “sweat shops” years ago because very few, if any, politician has the courage to say that those days were filled with individuals making up their own mind to work in the “sweat shops” without the use of force. Let me say it again. No one forced them. Still the image lives on to combine with an uninformed electorate and “news” media.

    You do not say, “and to the democracy” when you recite the Pledge, but millions of Americans and thousands of so-called journalists still believe that America, a nation expressly designed not to be a democracy is in fact a democracy. Do you see where I’m going with this? Of course they will continue to buy the class warfare because they don’t even have the small knowledge it takes to know that we were not supposed to be a “Majority Rule” nation. For those who do not understand what I mean there are several parts of the Constitution that prevents majority rule, beginning with the Electoral College.

    As far as I’m concerned it’s a given that class warfare will continue to work because it has worked for so long. Even Reagan only slowed it down against his own party and the Dems who stepped up to the plate to keep it hitting home runs against Americans. I suspect that many couldn’t even pass a D-grade test, as witnessed on O’Reilly’s show when Jesse Watters interviewed people on Jones Beach who have no clue about what it is supposed to mean to be an American.

    I really hope Bernie reads this. He told me he does read a lot of comments, and I also wish that Rush and Mark Levin would also read it. They actuallly have some clout with their listeners, and I sure don’t.

    • Drew Page

      No one should be surprised that young Americans have no idea of how this country became a nation, who the founding fathers were or what they believed.  It is no longer taught in schools.   Apparently today’s educational system feels it more important to detail the dangers of global warming, embracing diversity and alternative lifestyles than the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence  and the reasons for the Electoral College.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3FAENBN4GWR4OIQ5PFH4GXWPPM Charlie

         Far more to the point, today’s educational system puts WAY too much emphasis on one-size-fits-none bubble sheets that are supposed to provide “standards.” All it’s done is make teachers teach to the bubble sheet and everything else be damned.

        The liberal bent doesn’t help; the deliberate writing out of real basic education is making matters worse.

  • Soundblight

    If you make over 250K you can pay more.  Somebody please ask, “Pay more for what?”  Fair question, he wants more in taxes, he should be forthcoming with what they will be used for.

  • http://twitter.com/semperfisy Stanley Yanis

    They are neck to neck because Romney, like a technical boxer, comes out of his corner and dances around, a few jabs here, and a few jabs there.  He needs to throw a few HARD punches in order to win.

  • Pep1ron

    I wonder if those that are polled really give an honest answer. (Or, do they mis-understand the question?)

  • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

    Whoever gets the atribution; “You’ll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public,”, it’s the enigma of today.  And just the intelligence isn’t all; the way they use what they have; do they hear and not listen? Not only do they opt for rose-colored glasses, but the idea of using them to read other than headlines is too much.
    Surely, Barnum brought the world afar to many, and provided feats that dropped jaws; but there was also the cotton candy, trinkets and clowns.

  • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

    Whether class warfare will work is one question. The other question is whether the practice of accusing the president of practicing class warfare will work.  We’ll find out in November. 

    • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

      Class warfare working has been witnesses in history already.  It’s victories have been celebrated in cemetaries.  Those that survive create underground economies and black-markets.
      By the time the USSR closed down, the only economy it had was the blackmarket.

  • Haroldpjaffe

    Bernie. I dont see why Mitt is afraid to say  “I am rich and thats  the American dream”. Thats what we work for. He  sure is dull, but anyone except Obama. By the way, I know its a job but you need to sit down with Oreilly and tell him to let you finish your sentances. He cuts you off completely and always before you finish.

  • Mary

    I DON’T KNOW WHY PEOPLE DON’T LIKE THE RICH OR ARE JEALOUS OF THEM?
    I’M FAR FROM RICH, I APPLAUD A PERSON THAT HAS DONE WELL IN THE WORLD.
    THEY GOT UP AT 6AM TO GO TO WORK, THEY STAYED LATE AND WORKED FOR WHAT THEY HAVE. THEY DIDN’T LAY ON A SOFA WATCH JERRY SPRINGER AND COMPLAIN THAT THEY WEREN’T GETTING ENOUGH FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
    LIKE SO MANY FREELOADERS DO AND THEY THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE MONEY THAT WE PAY IN TAXES AND THEY DON’T. I HOPE PEOPLE WISE UP REALLY SOON.

    • asl3676

      Your assertion that people dont like the rich is absurd. Paying 3% more in taxes is hateful? Why are you buying into the hype? Did the US economy do better under Clinton or Bush? WAKE UP

      • mc19171

        The tax rate under Clinton was way lower than what is being proposed…Income tax, 3%higher but look at the Capitol gains tax, Taxes on Dividends and others…see what Bill Clinton is saying…
         http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/05/splitting-with-obama-bill-clinton-says-supports-extending-all-bush-era-tax-cuts/

        • asl3676

          I dont disagree but the moaning and groaning appears to be out of proportion for the amount of money involved.
          When they say its not about money..we know its only about money…

      • Jeffreydan

          Wanting people to pay more in taxes just because they’re rich isn’t in the spirit of equal protection under the law. You don’t think rich people have Constitutional rights, A*s**l*?

        • asl3676

          Jeffrey Dan,
            The proggressive tax system has been in effect for about 85 years or as long as America has had an income tax and has been ruled constitutional..Taxes are not based upon wealth…they are based upon income. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3FAENBN4GWR4OIQ5PFH4GXWPPM Charlie

            “Ruled Constitutional” by political appointees does not make it right. Nor does it make it the best system.

            Yes, an income tax is part of the Communist Manifesto. As it is part of the Progressive and Fascist ideology.

            Now…can an income tax be done in a way that it wouldn’t smack of either of those things? Yes, it can be, but study after study by Austrian-theory economists (Keynesian economists can’t understand why people want lower taxes, it would defeat Keynesianism,) and other center/center-right economic institutes have shown that the income tax is the most destructive form of taxation because it actually takes away incentive to work. The Foundation for Economic Education, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and the Institute for Humane Studies can all supply you with reports and papers to back this.

            The best thing is to move to a consumption tax- NOT a VAT tax, those are deadly, and one of the reasons why Europe is floundering so badly.

      • Jeffreydan

          Another question that isn’t asked nearly enough: what good will taking more of wealthy people’s money really do? 

        • asl3676

          Paying taxes are a responsibility of citizenship. Why are you so concerned about whether LeBron James, Alex Rodriguez or Bill O’Reilly pay a bit more in taxes?  Do you think it will make any difference to them?

          • James King

            Yes! It makes a difference. The 16th Amendment of a Progressive Income Tax making it constitutional is a classic case of this–just because something is constitutional does not make it right. Also, the income tax is number 2 of the ten planks of the Communist Mannifesto. The recent decission by the Supremes joins America even closer to the living Marxist attitudes of people who are just plain dumb.

            And let me close with this to all of you who think you want a Socialist/Communist State. First, Ayn Rand wrote that the difference between a Welfare State and a Totalitarian State is a matter of time.

            Second, I think that no one, including me fully understands that if American had stayed loyal to the original Constitution the unbelievable wealth that would exist worldwide. And don’t give me that 3/5 argument. Even the great Fredrick Douglas understood that the Constitution was, as written, an anti-slavery document. But then he was a reader and a thinker. 

          • asl3676

            Income taxes = ideology? I am a pragmatist not an idealogue…I run a business I don’t practice ideology or religion in my business.
            And I am fan of the Marx Brothers so I guess that makes me a marxist…LOL

          • asl3676

            Communist Manifesto? You expect to be taken seriously with this kind of talk…

          • Drew Page

            If paying taxes is a responsibility of citizenship, why are 48% of all income earners not paying any federal income taxes?  Those 48% should be denied the rights of US citizenship, especially the right to vote. 

          • asl3676

            Everyone who is alive and breathing pays taxes and your statistic is highly misleading. Everone who works pays FICA and medicare. Everyone who buys anything pays sales and excise taxes..You’re watching too much Fox News..

          • Jeffreydan

              This time try answering my question: what good will taking more of wealthy taxpayers’ money really do?  

          • Jeffreydan

            Surprise! It was a simple question, and asl can’t answer it.
              So considerate of others when they prove my point.

          • James King

            The answer is, good will happen to all of those people who want big government. I think that they would not be so receptive if they ended up “poor,” because big government is about buying votes, not about good government. No American should be for taking more money from any taxed class because it just perpetuates the immorality of big government.

            A moral government does not initiate force, it only responds to force. This means it does not declare war against another nation who has not used force against us, and it certainly means a moral government does not use force against an unarmed citizen. Why is this so difficult to understand? Or, do people like you really do understand but try to make others believe you just don’t get it?

            Marx was wrong. Stalin was wrong. Teddy was wrong. Woodrow was wrong. FDR was wrong. Truman was wrong. Ike was wrong. Nixon was wrong. Ford was wrong. Johnson was wrong. Carter was wrong. Clinton was wrong. Both Bush’s were wrong, and Obama is wrong. And all of the editions of the House and Senate in those times were wrong.

            Washington and Jefferson were right, then it started to devolve with politicians who increasingly craved power, with some let-ups in between all who came before Teddy Roosevelt, and that immoral president is on Rushmore!

            Government is to protect us from invasion, force and fraud and nothing else. All programs geared to the so-called poor are designed to help politicians, not poor people. They would be greatly helped by government getting out of the way as has been shown many times from natural disasters before immoral pols. learned they could buy votes with money immorally extracted from the citizenry. Why is this so hard to understand? Liberals and conservatives don’t get it. Sad!

          • Jeffreydan

            “Why is this so difficult to understand? Or, do people like you really do understand but try to make others believe you just don’t get it?”
            —————————-
              I’m assuming that was directed at asl, not me.
              The question I asked him was more a challenge to him, not due to any lack of understanding on my part. 

          • James King

            Jeffreydan, So are you fully admitting that big government supporters like yourself do understand that big government is immoral and only a benefit to folks near the top like any Ponzi scheme? So, do you really get it but use it only to benefit yourself?

          • Jeffreydan

              James, you are mistaken. I am a long-time small govt conservative. For one example, read my response to asl from 2 days ago.
             
              If you still think otherwise, check out any one of my columns on this site. Here is my first:
             http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/in-other-words…/

          • James King

            Jeffreydan, Sorry if I misspoke or wrote to the wrong person. But if you are a small government person, are you also a moral government person? The role of a moral government is–protection; protection against initiated violence from Americans and from foreign entities. This means an army, police and courts. Is this what you mean? Or is it that you mean what some conservative Republicans say, and many of them say different things.

            Pragmatically, we need to return to a small government. Honestly we need to return to a constitutional government. That is what I am for. What are you for?

          • Jeffreydan

            (From comment posted earlier today) “Pragmatically, we need to return to a small government. Honestly we need to return to a constitutional government. That is what I am for. What are you for?”
            ———————–
              I am for govt that is at worst small.
              It’s debatable whether or not liberals in the current mold love this country, but they sure as hell don’t respect it.
              I firmly believe the phrase “if you don’t like it here, get the hell out” is more than a t-shirt or sticker. There are lots of countries out there with big fat govts running the things that American liberals favor. 
              Any American who is happy Obamacare was passed is either ignorant, dumb, or disgraceful.
            If said person had any decency, he/she would move to England or Canada rather than mess with what’s here.        

          • James King

            Jefferydan, I agree with everything you just wrote. The decision by Justice Roberts had no justice in it, only a desire to be a liberal. But believe it or not, there are some liberals, not as liberal as Obama and his bunch, who love America and believe he has gone too far. He has. And it has been going on for a minimum of 100 years. I think it was started by Teddy Roosevelt and he is on Rushmore!

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3FAENBN4GWR4OIQ5PFH4GXWPPM Charlie

           I’m replying to both Mr. Page and “asl3676.”

          1. No citizen should have their rights abridged because the tax law says they owe no tax. What that would be is tantamount to the disenfranchisement the French 3rd and 4th Estates had prior to their revolution. In addition, it would also smack of “writ of remander” for the “crime” of being poor. If you think a lot of the rabble and lazy are difficult now, wait until your take away their votes and other rights. There is never an excuse to take rights away from someone unless a crime has been committed. That’s NOT a conservative view- that’s fascist/socialist thinking at its worst.

          2. The reason why raising taxes is so bad in this economy is that we need that money available for capital- for private investment. Now…why aren’t they investing? We’ve made it so difficult and unrewarding to invest in America- mostly (but not all) through government meddling, that it’s not returning what it can or should. So, people are parking their funds in the bank…wait…the bank? Yes- banks make loans (at least in theory, I’ll leave that rant for another time,) but when they fund a business to buy equipment, or someone to buy a car or make repairs to their home- those activities create jobs.

          And if that money is being invested internationally, people not just in that country can benefit, but we can too. Those investments help support production of goods sold around the world, tourism, and a myriad of other economic activities.

          The whole concept of the idle rich is laughable. Their money is always working- we just don’t always see it.

          As to the question about paying more taxes IF and only if there was some assurance that all extra was going towards paying down the national debt- that’s something that should not be limited to the rich. Perhaps all deductions should be eliminated, just keep the personal exemption. And this would be the case until the Federal debt returns to below $1Trillion.

          Better idea- cut all the extra stuff, switch to a flat, low-rate income tax or the Fair Tax (which I still think is the best way to go,) and watch revenues naturally increase.

      • Drew Page

        An additional 3% tax on “the rich” would not hurt them.  But then again it isn’t going to help anything either.   It would merely provide a few more dollars for Congress to pizaway on unnecessary spending.    Congress has made no move to cut spending anywhere.  Where would I cut?   I would cut the payrolls of Dept. of Education by 90%; the Dept. of Energy by 80%; the Dept. of Transportation by 80%; the Dept. of Agriculture by 80%.   I would cut Pentagon spending for military hardware by 10%.   I would put a freeze on federal government pay increases for at least three years.   I would comingle federal pension plan funds with Social Security funds and put all federal employees under age 55 on Social Security.   I would also suggest making all members of Congress subject to the same laws and regulations that apply to all other American citizens.   How’s that for a start?

        • asl3676

          Well when you are elected POTUS and do away with Congress and the Courts perhaps you could accomplish all of these noble goals. Of course you would put the country into a major recession but you would justify it by saying that Father Knows Best.

      • soundnfury

        Just 3% more. Hells bells… sign me up. Hey, wait just a cotton-picking minute. You left out key information, like the additional 3.8% Medicare tax, not to mention the following changes on cap gains & divs:

        . Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013):
        This increase involves the creation
        of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households
        making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following
        top tax rates on investment income:

        Capital
        Gains

        Dividends

        Other*

        2010-2012

        15%

        15%

        35%

        2013+
        (current law)

        23.8%

        43.4%

        43.4%

        2013+
        (Obama budget)

        23.8%

        23.8%

        43.4%

         *Other
        unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest,
        annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and
        Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life
        insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include
        active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in
        pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax
        does not apply to non-resident aliens.
        http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/obamacare-21-new-or-higher-taxes.html

        • asl3676

          What’s the effective rate? Isn’t that all that matters?

  • Kathie Ampela

    I think last night’s Watters World segment may answer your question!

    • Bruce A.

      Exactly, they do walk among us.

  • Al

    Class warfare does not work. It is nothing more than Socialism. I have only been around for40 years, but if my history education is correct (unlike those on Watter’s World tonight on the Factor), no socialist economy has been proved successful.

    Great quote by P.T. Or H.L.!

    Also, great appearance tonight on the Factor! You provided, as always, excellent insight!

    • Beckejt

      Unfortunately, class warefare does work, until it doesn’t.  It gets people elected, pushes taxes to a smaller and smaller % of the population, increases entitlement spending “for those less fortunate”, and on and on.  Just look at California, Greece, Spain, Illinois, Venezuala, etc.  Of course it eventually comes crashing down, as you rightly point out.  But, even then the class warefare mantra continues, claiming the crash was caused by the rich, the U.S., Bankers, etc.  And the average folks believe it and keep electing people who will “fight for them”.

  • American

    what you forgot to say in your blast on Bill O’Reilly tonight is that the President anticipated that he would have a Congress that would at least work with him, and not against the American people.  Instead, he got, as Senator Mitch McConnel said on the day of President Obama’s Inauguration, that his (McConnell’s) goal was to make the President a “one term President”, so no matter what, the President wanted for the American people, the Republicans would have no part of it, even when it was their idea.
    that shows your bias!

    • Jim

      The President insists on playing games rather than actually looking for a compromise.  For example, his “balanced” approach to reducing the deficit is raising taxes now for spending cuts at some point in the future.  That’s not compromise, that’s a trick to get tax increases through and then ignore the spending cuts.  It is up to the President to lead and gain concensus.  And don’t forget, he had both houses of Congress and the White House for 2 years.

      • asl3676

        Obama had 60 Senate votes for about 60 days not two years…Goole the facts not Fox News nonsense….It’s up to the President to gain consensus? Well Lincoln didn’t, FDR didn’t….

      • ahalbert

         Asl: Obama had a voting majority in both houses for two years, not 60 days. Obviously, this president couldn’t persuade his own party much of the time. But Obama did not go after the Dems who didn’t support his legislation, instead preferring to blame Republicans. The ongoing Dem Senate majority has blocked most  House legislation since then, proving they are as good at obstruction as anyone. As for not wanting to see this president have a second term, McConnell reflects the feelings of many, who saw Obama’s socialist preferences before inauguration day and continue to find them unacceptable.

    • Drew Page

      What I remember Mr. Obama saying was that he would post all proposed legislation on the internet for three days before signing it into law.  I also remember how he was going to televise the debate on health care reform on C-SPAN and include doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, representatives of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries as well as members of Congress from both parties.  I remember how he said Obamacare would not increase the taxes of families earning less than $250,000 a year, not by even a single dime.   Does it really matter what this man says anymore?

  • http://twitter.com/St_Louis_Ray Ray Raney

    Americans vote their pocketbook. And now more than ever Americans (from all walks of life) depend on the government to put money in their wallet. Either we start turning down the handouts (highly unlikely) or the money will dry up. Then and only then will the votes flip to another candidate.

    Obama  was voted in because Americans were angry. Now that the anger has subsided some have reconsidered. Many more seem to have been trapped into a life of dependence.

    Unless a candidate specifically promises a way out, nothing will change.

     

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3FAENBN4GWR4OIQ5PFH4GXWPPM Charlie

      The problem is, neither major party will muster the political will to give us a REAL way out. The Libertarians do; the Tea Party, excluding some of its more absurd groupies, have some sound ideas, but the mainstream pol won’t do it. It requires backbone and brains. So much for that right there.

  • Marc Tarabour

    Great job
    tonight as always, can we get the 5 promises, did you post them somewhere and
    most importantly will Romney use them in a debate to wake people up as to what
    as hypocrite we have in the oval office?

    • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

      Good point Marc, Romney must articulate 5 (five) points clearly and ‘git’agoin’.
      And I use the terms ‘articulate’ with ‘clearly’ meaning not vaguely dropping “cut taxes”.  It wouldn’t hurt to name a few cuts.  Might even be good to cite where efficiencies should be enhanced; the boarders (inland airports are boarders if you haven’t thought about it), try a mind-buster with block grants to states for education and some subsidies.

  • http://twitter.com/ransto Randall Stokes

    I do not know if people relize Obamas plan from day #1 in his administration THE PLAN  has come to frutasion day,byday,byday.byday…until we have come to this day THE PLAN is working perfectly don’t people know this. How do you destory a nation…THRU IT’S WEALTH !