Postelection poll results contradict media claims that U.S. is a "center-right" country
SUMMARY: Several media figures have claimed that President-elect Barack Obama won the election because he ran as a conservative and that notwithstanding Obama's victory, the United States is a conservative country. However, a poll conducted November 4-5 showed strong support for the progressive positions that Obama has articulated on the issues, rebutting the claim that the United States is a conservative country.
Several in the media have claimed that President-elect Barack Obama won the election because he ran as a conservative and that notwithstanding Obama's victory, the United States is a conservative country. In claiming that Obama ran as a conservative, these media figures ignore the central components of his platform, including repeal of tax cuts for the wealthy, near-universal health-care coverage, and redeployment of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling group, released a poll on November 7 that showed strong support for the positions that Obama has articulated on these issues. The poll also included questions that provided a direct choice between the position taken by Obama on a given issue and that taken by Sen. John McCain (without referring to Obama or McCain) -- with the more progressive choice echoing Obama's position and the more conservative echoing McCain's. For most questions that juxtaposed a clear progressive view with a clear conservative view, the progressive position was more popular. A list of positions Obama took on major issues during the campaign makes it clear that he did not run as a conservative, and the Democracy Corps poll results rebut the claim that Obama ran as a conservative and that the United States is a conservative country.
Democracy Corps polled 2,000 voters November 4-5 and posed several questions as direct contrasts between a conservative approach and a progressive approach, some of which were directly drawn from the arguments made by Obama and McCain. The poll asked which statement "comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right."
Trade
The poll asked respondents to choose between these two statements -- "I'm more worried that we will do too little to require fair trade and enforce worker and consumer protections" and "I'm more worried that we will got too far burdening free trade accords with protections for consumers and labor." Fifty-three percent of respondents said the first statement was closer to their point of view, compared with 34 percent who chose the second statement. During the October 16 presidential debate at Hofstra University, Obama said: "I believe in free trade. But I also believe that for far too long, certainly during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Senator McCain, the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement. And NAFTA doesn't have -- did not have enforceable labor agreements and environmental agreements." McCain, for his part, attacked Obama for "oppos[ing] the Colombia Free Trade Agreement."
Social Security
The Democracy Corps survey asked respondents to choose between one statement on Social Security, "We need to reform Social Security and protect it to ensure that it's a safety net the American people can count on," and a second, more conservative statement: "We need to reform Social Security and establish personal savings accounts so individuals have more options." The first statement, supported by 63 percent of respondents, is similar to Obama's proposal to "protect Social Security" and "ensur[e] Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future." The second statement, involving Social Security private accounts, was supported by 35 percent of respondents. As recently as July 8, McCain said on CNN's American Morning that he supports allowing workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into private accounts: "I want young workers to be able to, if they so choose, to take part of their own money, which is their taxes, and put it into an account, which has their name on it. Now, that's a voluntary thing, it's for younger people. It would not affect any -- any present-day retirees or the system as necessary."
Health care
Regarding health care, the Democracy Corps survey offered a relatively progressive statement, which was supported by 58 percent of respondents: "Our health care system needs fundamental reform, we should regulate insurance companies and give everyone a choice between a public plan or what they have right now." This statement is similar to Obama's proposal for health-care reform, which "[r]equire[s] insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions"; allows individuals to keep their current health-care coverage if they choose to do so; and establishes "a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage." The other statement offered by the survey -- "Our health care system needs fundamental reform; we should give American families more choice by giving individuals a tax credit to choose their own coverage" -- was supported by 38 percent of respondents. That relatively conservative statement was similar to McCain's proposal: "While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit -- effectively cash -- of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider."
Priorities
The Democracy Corps survey also specifically tested many of the policies Obama has proposed, asking voters whether each should be "the SINGLE highest priority, one of the TOP FEW priorities, but not the highest, NEAR THE TOP of the list, in the MIDDLE OF THE LIST, or TOWARD THE BOTTOM of the list of priorities for the new president." If a respondent actually disagreed with an item on the agenda, he or she would presumably place the goal "toward the bottom of the list of priorities." The data demonstrate that the public appears to want action on many of the key pieces of Obama's agenda.
Among the proposals the survey presented that a majority of respondents considered at least "near the top" of their priorities:
- "Repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250,000 dollars and cut taxes for middle class families and anyone making under 200,000 dollars." Sixty percent said this was at least "near the top" of their priorities. Obama proposed "broad-based tax relief to middle class families" and raising taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year.
- "Make health insurance affordable and accessible to all Americans." Seventy-two percent said this was at least "near the top" of their priorities. As noted above, Obama proposed "a National Health Insurance Exchange ... that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage."
- "End the war in Iraq responsibly and redeploy our troops from Iraq to Afghanistan." Seventy-six percent said this was at least "near the top" of their priorities. Obama proposed withdrawing troops from Iraq in a way that is "responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government." Obama has also proposed "providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan."
- "Repeal tax breaks that benefit companies that move jobs overseas." Fifty-nine percent said this was at least "near the top" of their priorities. Obama has said, "I want to end the tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and provide a tax credit for every company that's creating a job right here in America."
- "End dependence on foreign oil by 2025 by requiring one quarter of U.S. electric power to come from alternative energy where new investments will create new jobs." Eighty-one percent said this was at least "near the top" of their priorities. Obama's energy plan proposes that "10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025."
- "Make job-creating investments in America's aging roads and transportation systems and stimulate new economic activity." Fifty-nine percent said this was at least "near the top" of their priorities. Obama's energy plan calls for "devot[ing] substantial resources to repairing our roads and bridges."
Further undermining media claims that Obama ran as a conservative in an effort to appeal to a conservative country are statements by Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III and Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner before the election attacking Obama for embracing "socialism" or espousing views that were contrary to conservatism. As Media Matters noted, after the election, Bozell claimed that Obama ran as a conservative -- a sharp departure from his accusation before the election that Obama was espousing "socialism" throughout the "entirety of the campaign." Similarly, in a November 7 Washington Times column, Feulner claimed that Obama "campaigned on conservative themes throughout the fall" and that Obama "took some conservative positions on issues like taxes (promising to cut them)." Yet prior to the election, in an August 10 column, Feulner had claimed that by "unveil[ing] an economic plan that revolves around raising taxes on the wealthy," Obama indicated that he "want[s] to go back to the policies of the 1970s" under former President Jimmy Carter. Feulner also asserted in the August column that "Mr. Obama promises to 'soak the rich.' "
The following are examples of media figures claiming the United States is a conservative or "center-right" country, some of whom also claimed that Obama ran as a conservative. The blog Think Progress has highlighted a number of these examples.
During the 11 a.m. hour of CNN Newsroom on November 6, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan said, "No question this country is center-right":
TONY HARRIS (anchor): The election is behind us. We can talk about the future and moving forward and getting some things done. You know, I wanted to have you on to ask some pretty straightforward questions.
BUCHANAN: Sure.
HARRIS: How will we -- "we," big "we" -- make this work? I'm talking Republicans, Democrats, independents, Libertarians. Republicans -- do Republicans want to work with a President-elect Obama?
BUCHANAN: Well, it all depends on which direction the country -- Obama wants to take the country. If he is really going to govern from the center and recognizes that the nation is center to right, then we're gonna work with him, just as we worked with Bill Clinton to get welfare reform.
But when Bill Clinton wanted to nationalize health care, we fought him tooth and nail. And we won, because the American people were on our side at the time. So, that's what I think is going to be the formula for the next couple of years.
HARRIS: Hey, Bay, you mentioned center-right. You still believe the country is center-right? I'm looking at Indiana. I'm looking at how close things were in Missouri. I'm looking at Virginia. I'm look -- do you still believe it's center-right? Couldn't it just be center, whatever that is, just center?
BUCHANAN: Oh, no. Look -- keep looking carefully there.
HARRIS: OK.
BUCHANAN: There's no question that this vote was absolutely against Republicans and George Bush, a repudiation of the direction we took the nation. Ninety percent of the country thinks we were going -- think we are on the wrong direction. So, that's Republicans --
HARRIS: So, did you take it too far right?
BUCHANAN: No, we didn't take it too -- we did not govern using the principles of the party. We abandoned those principles, and we got -- now look at what Obama ran on. One of the key issues was tax cuts. Those two words are basically a conservative message and always have been. And he grabbed them, and I don't believe his tax policy is something I would support, but he sold it as if it were. No question this country is center-right. And we'll be with him as long as he stays moving the country in the direction we believe is in our best interest.
During the November 5 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ, Fox News contributor Karl Rove said, "Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country, and he smartly and wisely ran a campaign that emphasized that":
BILL HEMMER (anchor): You know, I've thought for a long time that the country was center-right. Maybe that's 51 percent, but still center-right. Did these results make us, or force us, to rethink that?
ROVE: No, no, not at all. In fact, look, remember, we have a Democrat candidate for president. Our president-elect ran on the basis of a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans. He ran television ads in the battleground states that called government-run health care extreme. He attacked his Republican opponent for favoring a tax cut on -- a tax increase on health benefits. I mean, we, we -- Barack Obama balanced his comments about Iraq with tough language on Afghanistan, even threatening to invade an ally. No, Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country, and he smartly and wisely ran a campaign that emphasized that. We're not red states, blue states, we're the United States, and he talked about conservative values such as hard work, patriotism, service to community, and sacrifice for community.
During a November 5 interview on PBS' Charlie Rose, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham said, "It's just this side of possible that Obama will be able to govern, what I believe, is largely a center-right country." As Think Progress noted, Meacham wrote in a cover story for the October 27 edition of Newsweek that "[s]hould Obama win, he will have to govern a nation that is more instinctively conservative than it is liberal -- a perennial reality that past Democratic presidents have ignored at their peril." From Meacham's interview with host Charlie Rose:
ROSE: Fresh, new, different. Where have we transformed politics in this race?
MEACHAM: Well, here's one thing about Obama. You know, he did opt out of public financing. He just spent more money than anybody in history. This is not, I think -- I think progressives should be very careful feeling the millennium is about to come and, you know, disease will be gone by Saturday and poverty by Monday. This is a very practical man. And I think that he's a lot like Ronald Reagan, in that it's quite possible his core believers have such faith in him that they'll forgive him his compromises, that -- you know, Reagan could raise taxes. Reagan could sign liberal abortion bills. He could do --
ROSE: Reagan could talk to the Soviets.
MEACHAM: Right, the Soviets. Reagan could end the Cold -- could do all that. Reagan could grow government by 6 or 7 percent and still be this, this figure. It's just this side of possible that Obama will be able to govern, what I believe, is largely a center-right country.
A November 6 Washington Times editorial stated: "Democrats may argue, why should Obama play fair? He's earned the office, Democrats rule now and Republicans be damned. But we would remind them and Mr. Obama that this is still a center-right country." From the Times editorial:
Mr. Obama is moving quickly. He has reportedly named "hyper-partisan" Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. This contrasts with his acceptance remarks on election night, when Mr. Obama spoke on a theme of bipartisanship: "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn -- I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too."
Democrats may argue, why should Obama play fair? He's earned the office, Democrats rule now and Republicans be damned. But we would remind them and Mr. Obama that this is still a center-right country. Mr. Obama, despite his liberal record, now represents all Americans -- including the independents, Republicans and Democrats who voted against him.
During the November 5 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Tom Brokaw said, "And this country, even with the election of Barack Obama last night, remains a very centered country, or maybe even center-right in a lot of places." He later added, "We still remain a centered country or a center-right country when you look at the geographic distribution":
BROKAW: And this country, even with the election of Barack Obama last night, remains a very centered country, or maybe even center-right in a lot of places. There were a lot of people who were center-right who crossed over and voted for Barack Obama because they feel betrayed by what has happened in the last eight years with the theology that was preached and then not put into practice by the people who were in office, frankly --
JOE SCARBOROUGH (co-host): Amen on that.
BROKAW: -- on so many levels. The wisdom of the American people is always the most heartening thing to me. You know, they figured out -- we sit here for two -- almost two years now talking about this every day and micromanaging what may happen next.
They're taking it in, they're making decisions about what's in the best interest of their family and community and their country, and they made a big investment in this young man. As Peter Hart said, they voted for hope over fear. Because he is still an untested politician who's coming into one of the worst opening acts I could imagine a president could possibly have.
[...]
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Tom Brokaw has been fixated on this presidential vote map county-by-county, which shows the colors even more doppled [sic] across the country. If you can hold it up.
BROKAW: We can show that. I mean -- and that's what I was talking about earlier.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
BROKAW: We still remain a centered country or a center-right country when you look at the geographic distribution. This is county by county. And I think really that what will happen here is that the American people will have to decide whether their statement last night comes with a compact that they have to make -- with themselves and with the presidency -- that it's not just a fleeting moment.
Just don't give Barack Obama the job, stand back and say, "OK, pal, what are you going to do for us?" Because in this case, it is everybody on deck, all hands on the oars.
Repugs are on their way out and have only themselves to blame. Conservatism is a chronic disease and there is no cure. It's a reactionary bunch of white people (mainly) who want America to travel back to the '50's. Those days are done and long live liberalism! Liberal thinking has brought the greatest gains to this country and the world.
In all seriousness, I disagree that there's no cure. Don't get me wrong -- I am rabidly liberal myself -- but I think the right's problem is that they have violated their own principles, so they don't know who they are anymore, and they don't represent most of America anymore. OR, perhaps more to the point, political conservatism foolishly hitched its wagon to religious fundamentalism as well as to corporate greed, both of which are in many ways at odds with conservative philosophy.
There are conservative solutions to America's problems, some of which might even appeal to the majority of Americans. BUT, the right hasn't offered those solutions. Instead, faced with a problem, the right has irrationally linked that problem to a pseudo-solution that is actually a transparent step toward theocracy or a transparent giveaway to corporations or both. I guess Americans don't like that.
And now the bill has come due.
I think Obanma is a conservative first, a person who believes and follows constitutional law and a person that listens to all sides, very much unlike the past eight years. There must be different flavors to conservatism. The Hannities of this nation are going to continue spewing their partisan hackery and blindly suck up to the next GOP nominee, whoever he/she may be. Or they might simply be fired by then for not doing their job this time.
Obama cannot be both the most liberal senator (according to the right) and a conservative. That's simply nonsense. He's an intelligent liberal in the classic sense of the term, which implies he's open to any ideas that resolve problems as long as they are constitutional. FACT: Liberals have an expansive forward looking worldview, while conservatives have a restrictive backwards looking worldview. Combined they comprise the yin/yang of the American body politic.
To regain credibility the GOP will have to excise themselves of ignoramuses like Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly, et al, and return to the intellectually driven arguments presented by William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater. Both of whom I disagreed with wholeheartedly, but at least they made rational arguments.
The era ushered in by b-movie actor and refrigerator salesman Ronald Reagan, will historically be known as the advent of the American Dark Ages, with science and secularism under constant assault, while this new Obama era will be deemed the American Renaissance. Count on it.
It's a reactionary bunch of white people (mainly) who want America to travel back to the '50's.
Yeah, but one problem-- they control the media, which means that Obama is in for one whale of an harassment campaign.
Why don't they just go ahead and make Brokow the head of the RNC? Were there ever two sides to the issues concerning the Geneva Convention? Were there ever two sides to the issue concerning torture? Were there ever two sides to the issue concerning use of internment camps, foreign and domestic? Were there ever two sides of the issue concerning Executive submission to Congressional Subpoenas? Were there ever two sides of the issue concerning destruction of Executive papers? Were there ever two sides of the issue concerning lying to the American People about WMD's or tying Sadaam to 9/11? Millions of pages have already been written about these so-called issues and millions more will be written. The Bush/Cheney Administration will remain a blot on American History for a century.
It depends on who gets the cut.
According to BHO's plan, 95% of taxfilers will see more $ in their pockets (definitely a RW goal, less taxes). And the majority seems to be applauding that view. And it is a little bit selfish because we want others to suffer for our benefit (another RW goal). So I would say we are center right ;>)
Well, you are wrong. Let me know when liberals had as part of their tenents that the middle-class weren't taxed enough. They've always championed a shift in the tax burden from middle/lower class to those that can more afford it.
Obama and McCain both had tax cuts for the middle class. The difference is that Obama chose the responsible route and paid for this cuts with restoration of the Clinton rates on the wealthy. McCain's plan would make the deficit worse. Obama's is deficit neutral.
I think you are falling into the same trap by misunderstanding liberal/conservative and relying on stale old stereotypes regarding liberal views.
Also the change in pot laws in Mass and Hawaii, definitely a libertarian position.
Actually, I am just messing around, using the convoluted thinking of Bozo the Buffoon and others to justify their statements. The country is, at the moment, slightly center left. Congressional and Executive actions over the first half of 2009 will determine how far left of center they think the country needs to be. As I stated on another thread, the people have spoken, but it is up to government to govern well as the people have the chance to speak again in a couple of years. And I still believe that under all the liberal/conservative thought, there is a lot of common ground on which to build.
In the state i live in, Washington, the voters have approved a regional transportation bill that increases the length of the train system. This is in essense a tax increase that will provide a service to the majority of the community. Where the tax revenues become a problem when the end result is not for the community benefit. This past election the pundits and opinion makers have blurred this line and called any tax increase as if it is a bad thing to do and run on this simple definition. Rossi lost his credibility on this issue and lost the election for the electorate saw thru his spiel trying to transfom a voter approved tax increase of 9 % on gasoline sales as something Gov Gregoire foistered upon us taxpayers on her own. There is no doubt that the electorate should watch the ' checkbook " more closely than ever. BTW who is " Bozo the buffoon ". There are so many to choose from.
I think that a regional bond issue, such as you mention above, is fine. That was the major problem with Eyman's issue, it would have taken money from the whole state to apply to a regional issue (at least the way I read the issue. Only once or twice in my voting career have I voted against the local school district bond issues because I know that money will be spent locally and the bonds also give me a potential income source. Rossi misled with his ad on the gas tax, but there was some misleading statements from the other side on other issues. Politicians will always frame their campaigns to their benefit. It will be interesting to see how WA government handles the projected budget shortfall in the next session. I thought spending was a little reckless in the past few years.
Who was the first (or second) hi-lighting the center right position as pointed out here? That is my Bozo the Buffoon (at least at the moment).
You are in Washington too? Small world I guess.
In one of the many red counties in a blue state.
I grew up in a red county in Eastern Washington. I moved over to the "Wet Side" as a young adult and have been here ever since. Growing up liberal in a dark red area was tough. It took me awhile after moving to the Seattle area to realize that the majority actually agreed with me. It was strangely disconcerting, but I've since gotten over it.
Hey. I live in south Snohomish county and voted for Prop 1. I'm glad it passed. We need regional transit. I was glad to see the state go my way on all the statewide initiatives.
That makes at least five regular posters in the spacific NW. I'm in south Kitsap myself.
Anyone for pizza?
I miles east of Sandy, OR about half hour from Mount Hood. We had pizza Friday night. This has been a red county (until this year.)
And Robert makes five. If we find four more we could have a softball team.
Haven't been to that area for a couple decades. It has its attractions still I believe.
or six more we could have a football team to rival the Seahawks, Huskies or Cougars.
The Hawks did show signs of life as did those Muskies. There's some compensation in my schools team, "The Fuggin Ducks*" are as scrappy as they've been.
*George Carlin, said at Oregon, slightly altered for da filter.
"One could argue that the country is center-right because 95% of us are for tax cuts (for ourselves, not the top 5%). Aren't tax cuts a right side issue?"
Typical. The wrong debate again. It's a question of instituting a progressive tax rate, which is very much a left issue. It's about fundamental fairness.
what is progressive tax rate?
thanks.
We have a progressive tax rate right now. It means that those who earn more will pay a higher percentage in taxes. It is always a hot-button issue in elections.
Politicians use it to manipulate the electorate. Envy is a very powerful emotion. The politician will say, "Vote for me and I'll make sure that those evil, greedy, filthly, corrupt rich people will pay their 'fair share' of taxes." They know this works because there are very few rich people and well, politicians aren't trying to get "a few" votes.
There is hope. It's called the FairTax. It would be the largest transfer of political power from the politicians to the people in the history of this country. Could you imagine what a presidential debate would be like if they didn't have tax code to talk about? With the FairTax, politicians would be forced into fiscal responsibility because if they had to raise taxes, they would have to raise taxes on EVERYONE. Plus, it would reduce the tax code from 11,000 pages to just 126.
Read H.R. 25 and see what it's all about.
Factcheck.org has a fair analysis of the "fair tax" Factcheck is funded by the Annenburg foundation, certainly not "liberal" so please don't go there (Walter Annenburg was an ambassador under Ronald Reagan.) An excerpt:
..."the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the Tair Tax, unless you earn more than $2,000,000 per year, fairness is not one of them."
Fascinating. Of course, a team of world-class economists (even Harvard economists, for you Obama fans) agrees that it is the ONLY tax reform proposal that completely untaxes the poor.
What the Advisory Panel seemed to forget when calculating their estimation of the FairTax is that an automobile that has a 10,000 price tag would cost significantly less under the FairTax. When all tax burdens on capital, income and labor are removed, an automotive company can sell the same car with the same profit margin for, on average, about 22 percent less than 10,000. So without a financial impact on the car builder, they can sell the car for 7,800.
Then, when you add the 23 percent FairTax (inclusive, not exclusive like the Panel states) the 10,000 dollar car becomes 10,100 dollars. So, yes the price goes up about one percent. But the FairTax also abolishes the IRS, so all withholding, SS and Medicare taxes disappear.
So, yeah, your retail goods and services increase in price by one percent, but your paycheck increases by 18-35%.
So, read H.R. 25 and listen to the Harvard economists. They know what they're talking about. They are, after all, Harvard economists.
Some very smart people can't see the forest for the trees. From the factcheck link:
"Proponents of the FairTax point out that prices on consumer goods contain what are called “hidden taxes.” Under current law, corporations have to pay taxes on their earnings. Moreover, businesses have to pay social security taxes for each employee. The money to pay these taxes has to come from somewhere, and FairTax supporters argue that the cost is passed on to the consumer. In fact, the best-known proponent of the FairTax, talk-show host Neal Boortz, argues that 22 percent of the price of a consumer good is really a “hidden tax.” Get rid of corporate and social security taxes, Boortz argues, and consumer good prices would drop by 22 percent. Even with the 23 percent FairTax, prices stay the same, and with the elimination of income taxes, paychecks will get bigger. Everyone gets a raise and the federal government still gets its revenue. About 10 percent of the e-mail messages we received from FairTax proponents trumpeted this kind of magic act. It is easy to understand the confusion on the issue, as Boortz himself made similar assertions in the hardcover edition of his book. (He later issued a corrected version in paperback.)
A bit of critical analysis shows that this cannot be right. The FairTax is revenue-neutral. That means that for every tax dollar collected under the current system, the FairTax has to collect a dollar. If the FairTax exactly equaled embedded taxes, then it could not possibly be revenue-neutral, since embedded taxes do not take into account personal income or estate taxes. The FairTax rate would have to be high enough to replace embedded taxes plus income and estate taxes. .."
It's worth reading the entire fact check article, debunking the "revenue neutral" idea. Here's their concluding paragraph:
"The proposal to which Gov. Huckabee referred is not a 23 percent tax, but rather a 30 percent tax. And it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair."
While supporters of Senator Obama were celebrating (along with the world), the Repub fax machine was spitting out this "center-right" crapola. Again to have something to point towards "in case" any progressive legislation gets in the pipeline.
We heard this before. Back in 2006 when Democrats won a bunch of seats in the House and Senate. We heard how the only reason they won, was that they were more conservative Democrats, and that they were more Republican than Democrat, of course, at the time, this wasn't true, because we talked about the same thing back then, that the majority of the incoming democrats believe in liberal and progressive policies, and that's what they ran on. Same for Obama. He ran on liberal and progressive policies. Does anyone remember, oh, a couple of weeks ago when he was being called a socialist at every turn during this campaign, and they were calling Obama's tax plan redistribution of wealth, which it's not, as most of us know. Now some want to claim Obama's tax plan as being a conservative plan? Puh-leeze, again, just a week ago, he was being called everything from a terrorist sympathizer to a straight up commie pinko.
Since Obama won, and the democrats collected MORE seats in Congress, and the Senate, I'd say, that once again, the country is more center left, or just left, than it is conservative.
Mags, one point. If BHO's tax plan is almost revenue neutral, then what would you call it if not redistribution of wealth? Would like a term that could be used so that we don't fall into the RW trap.
That's a great point oscar, BHO himself said that his tax plan represents a "net tax cut". So then the only reason for his manipulation of the tax code is simply to take less from the poor and take more from the rich. I wouldn't call it redistribution, I would call it "selective seizure". However, his idea to enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies to simply send a $1000.00 check to taxpayers is indeed, redistribution.
However, his idea to enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies to simply send a $1000.00 check to taxpayers is indeed, redistribution.
House Bill 2001, dubbed Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share, or ACES, includes a 25 percent tax on the net value of oil. It will also charge 0.4 percent for each dollar the price of oil rises above $52 per barrel.
Last year, soon after becoming governor, she (Palin) proposed raising taxes on energy producers, an idea McCain strongly opposes. The legislature boosted the tax on oil pumped from state-owned land, with the rate increasing when prices exceed a benchmark of $52-a-barrel. Palin signed the bill and, this year, the new tax is expected to bring in more than $5 billion. That is a staggering sum for a state which projects only about $13 billion in total revenues.
This year, Palin redistributed a big chunk of that windfall. The legislature passed her plan to give Alaskans a $1200 rebate (on the top of the $2000 each Alaskan gets as an oil dividend) and suspended for a year the state's 8 cent per gallon tax on gasoline. For another look at this, check out the Don't Mess With Taxes blog.
There you go again Pearlene, using that brain thingy. It's not what Palin's done but what she rails against. Are you one of those elitists or something?
King, I just can't help it!
We have heard over and over about the "huge" profits the oil companies are making, but I have seen nothing about the amount they are contributing to the federal treasury on those sales.
Corporations in the end contribute a relatively small share of Federal revenue. Income taxes on labor constitute the majority of revenue.
That may be true, but I would like to be able to easily find the amount the oil cos pay in relation to their profits. I had the figures for corp vs individual taxes, but I can't put my fingers on the paper at the moment. We all know from posts on this site in the past that most corps pay little or no tax, but many of them are set up for that purpose only. And in the end Estate Taxes contribute a minute share of Fedeeral revenue and yet it is still an issue.
The corp tax issue is a global issue as our corp tax rates are among the highest in the world, but the corps have been able to pay for and buy the code writers (both parties) over the years to their benefit.
Well, off to a "free" meal.
Yeah, funny how we always hear about "obscene profits" or "record profits" but yet we never hear about "obscene taxes" or "record taxes".
We have a progressive tax system where those who can afford it pay more. If you don't want to pay "obscene taxes", earn less and live like the rest of us commoners.
I see, so that's the American way under Obama, right? Don't want you're taxes increased? Then stop earning so much money, duh.
It's up to the individual. I make more than 80 to 85 percent of the population and if make taxes were to increase it wouldn't deter me from making money but others may feel differently.
What if I told you that there is a tax reform measure on the floor right now that would completely untax the poor, let everyone decide how much tax they want to pay, eliminated the IRS, and made the US a bigger tax haven than the Cayman Islands, encouraging the return of at least 15 TRILLION dollars into the country that are currently sheltered offshore and overseas?
Also, it would make the USA the most attractive country in the world to do business in by eliminating all taxes on capital and labor, drawing jobs back into the country.
It wouldn't work in the long term because of the uneven revenue or possible no revenue coming into the government.
Secondly, why would a company come back here when they can find workers in other countries who are willing to work for slave wages?
Brilliant. So what's you're big idea to draw jobs to this country and make the US competitive on a global basis? Oh, wait, let me guess. Raise taxes on corporations?
Yeah, that'll work like a charm!!
Tariffs.
That would also work like a charm. But I'm sure you wouldn't mind paying double, triple for your clothing, etc. After all you earn so much. However how about the people on the lower end of the income spectrum? Tariffs can be as counterproductive as they are productive.
So we should allow companies to throw American workers out on the street and exploit workers in other countries just to save a few bucks?
Now, did I say that above, or did I type too fast for you to comprehend. Tariffs have to be handled very carefully, they can be as counterproductive as they seem to be productive. What do our exports consist of, primarily? Ag products and ? If we put too high a tariff on some imports, what is to prevent another country from slapping a huge tariff on what we would export, basically taking it off the market. One needs to be careful in the application of tariffs. (I tried typing a little slower just for you.)
They already do block our imports. Some of the fastest growing markets are ones that have erected barriers to protect their own industries while flooding the world market with their goods.
What kind of metrics on that "obscene" and "record?"
Corporate profits receive a lot of media attention, but what receives considerably less attention are the corporate taxes paid on corporate profits. Do a Google search for "Exxon profits" and you'll get about 8,000 hits. Now try "Exxon taxes" and you'll get a little more than 300 hits. That's a ratio of about 33 to 1.
I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.
By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!
[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]
Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.
According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:
Total number of tax returns: 130 million
Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million
Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion
Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion
Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
Thanks for the info
Again, you want us to feel sorry for a company that is raking in the most profit of any company in the history of the world and is paying its CEOs tens of millions of dollars. I just can't do that. I think they should be paying more taxes - they won't miss it.
loonz, you are absolutely right, they WONT miss it. Do you know why? Because "Exxon Mobil" doesn't pay taxes, do they? No, they don't.
There is a gas station in my hometown that got sick of people whining about gas prices and accusing the gas station owner of "gouging". So they started giving gas receipts that showed the breakdown of where your gas money went. It makes you realize EXACTLY who it is that pays Exxon Mobil's tax bill.
So, when you profess that "they should be paying more taxes - they won't miss it." take a minute to think about exactly who "they" are.
"They" appartently arn't Exxon Mobile then. Cute, have your customer pay your taxes and laugh all the why to the tax haven with your profits.
The largest part of their investments these days is buying back their own stock. This does what for our energy needs?
Fine. Don't like the way they do business? Don't buy sh*t from them and they'll be out of your life forever.
They make electric lawn mowers, electric weed eaters, and the Chevy Volt comes out in 2 years. Ride a bike or a Segway until then and then you're home free.
The Ducati gets close to 50mpg. I walk, I bicycle, I bus, I get by with an old 911 if I must. None of them use Exxon Mobile.
Any comment on Shell's attempt to walk off with the Iraqi oil. American capitalism at its best. Become the only source and then put in the screws. This sustains what in our economy?
Done some design work on a 1+ roadster, part D Jag, part mid 60's ferrari, part WW2 fighter. A stright six BMW converted to H2 fuel. Fuel storeage via hydride tech. None of this is beyond today's technology, nor expensive. Good looking machine too. Could be mainstream ten years ago.
I see no good reason why it isn't. I can see why certain capalistic leaches could somehow, some way stiffle this. Many rationalizations for why its failed to move to more efficient and cleaner technologies. I figure its 80-90% about what currently goes into their wallet, political power and how to make both grow.
Which seems pretty much what your supporting. How this would come to creat a thriving, sustainable, adaptive economy and society yer "greatness" is gonna have to use small words to make clear to me.
So taxes that Exxon paid on their record profits were passed on to customers? Either you're lying or the company is more morally bankrupted than I thought.
I think if you dig in most corporate budgets, taxes are figured in when developing pricing. Unless market conditions dictate otherwise, taxes are part of the purchase price. Stock holders (or other corp owners0 are certainly not going to cover the cost of taxes forever. Just as labor, cost of materials, utilities, etc are covered by the selling price, so are taxes. So, yes, the customer pays the taxes ultimately.
Thanks for covering me oscar. I'm can't figure out if loonz is a college freshman or still in high school. The previous statement by him makes me tend to favor the latter.
I suppose loonz thinks that Exxon Mobil has some giant safe adjacent to the board room especially for paying taxes. Lord knows where that money comes from, it's just there somehow. And the government should come along and clean that safe out. Nuts.
Okay loonz, here's first day Econ101:
All wealth is held by individuals, therefore all taxes are paid by individuals.
Corporations do NOT pay taxes. Their CUSTOMERS do.
Corporations do NOT hold wealth. The shareholders (i.e. individuals invested in mutual funds, IRA's, 401k's, etc.) are the ones who hold wealth.
If you raise taxes on a corporation, you are really raising taxes on the shareholders (again, individuals. Ask your parents what companies their 401k is invested in by the fund managers. I'll bet a dollar to a donut that Exxon Mobil is in there somewhere.)
So, by saying that Exxon Mobil should pay more taxes, what you are really saying is: a.) you want higher gas prices, AND b.) you want your parents to be worth less.
Next week, we'll cover the difference between "profit" and "profit margin" and you'll find out that PepsiCo earned more money selling SODA than Exxon Mobil did selling GAS. Read up, though. There will be a quiz.
Class dismissed.
>>Corporations do NOT pay taxes. Their CUSTOMERS do.
Only if they choose to. They could buy products from many different sources. Tax policy favors the giants so why not make it benefit Mom and Pop?
>>If you raise taxes on a corporation, you are really raising taxes on the shareholders (again, individuals. Ask your parents what companies their 401k is invested in by the fund managers. I'll bet a dollar to a donut that Exxon Mobil is in there somewhere.)
I would say they would be much more affected by the 30% "fair tax" that the right would like to impose than tax defered 401ks.
>>Next week, we'll cover the difference between "profit" and "profit margin" and you'll find out that PepsiCo earned more money selling SODA than Exxon Mobil did selling GAS. Read up, though. There will be a quiz.
Will you cover government subsidies for sugar and corn syrup?
I could understand a company passing on taxes raised on a particular resource they need but not on profit itself. The oil companies are left with tens of billions of dollars in the bank after they met all of their obligations including paying their CEOs tens of millions of dollars and paying taxes and they still want to pass off the cost of taxes? They're immoral.
And just to be clear, I don't want you to "feel" anything for Exxon Mobil. If you have an urge to "feel" sorry for anyone, feel sorry for the American people. We made Exxon Mobil what it is today by moving out to the suburbs and driving big SUV's for the last 20 years. We always hear "record profits" but rarely hear about "record consumption". Well, news flash, one equals the other.
Just keep in mind that Exxon Mobil is our creation. Everything they have done and will do comes DIRECTLY out of our banks and into theirs, via the gas pump.
We got tired of it this summer and our consumption plummeted. Guess what happened to the price of gas? WOW. And the government didn't have to do a d*mn thing, we did it all by ourselves. Ain't the free market great?
We have breathing space on the energy front. Will we waste it?
If you have an urge to "feel" sorry for anyone, feel sorry for the American people.
I'm in agreement with you there.
We made Exxon Mobil what it is today by moving out to the suburbs and driving big SUV's for the last 20 years.
Some people did that. I take mass transit most of the time.
We always hear "record profits" but rarely hear about "record consumption". Well, news flash, one equals the other.
Democrats have always talked about consumption. Barack talked about consumption in the debates and reducing consumption is in his energy policy.
We got tired of it this summer and our consumption plummeted. Guess what happened to the price of gas? WOW. And the government didn't have to do a d*mn thing, we did it all by ourselves. Ain't the free market great?
I'm not sure what caused prices to dropped but typically gas prices rise in the summer and tail off when going into the winter months.
Loonz wrote:
"I'm not sure what caused prices to dropped but typically gas prices rise in the summer and tail off when going into the winter months."
Here's a clue. OPEC, in response to reduced demand, is considering slowing production to keep the price of oil from going TOO LOW.
Hmmmm....."reduced demand". I wonder what that means.
How does this contradict what I said? It's a fact that gas prices rise in the summer and subside in the winter.
Actually, prices began to go down as soon as speculators were forced out of the market. It was their fault that it jumped from $60 a barrel to $100+ a barrel, and as soon as they were out of the equation things went back to "normal."
Look at the corporate press lapping up this talking point. Maybe Brokaw and the other rich media fat cats want him to be center right.
Gawd, Mary, realize the corporate press needs something to focus on from now until Jan 21. Perhaps they are the big reason for the divide and they are trying to advance other wedge issues so that they won't conntinue to lose audience to the alternate media (talk radio, internet, etc).
Agreed Bruce. BHO is no Conservative, and stating he ran as one, is just plain lying. Like Oscar said, if his tax plan is revenue neutral, is it not a redistribution of wealth? That's not Conservative.
If what Obama is doing is redistribution of wealth, then so is what Bush did slashing taxes for the rich, and increasing them on the middle class and the poor (paying more as a percent of their income of course). Aren't they both "redistribution"? It's just that Obama's is going to benefit the VAST majority of Americans, instead of the select few, and corporations who are already making large scale profits, and don't need tax cuts, or corporate welfare, from MY tax dollars. Explain to me why Exxon needs huge tax breaks, paid for with my dollars, when they're making billions of dollars, in profit, per quarter?
Redistribution of wealth IS a conservative principle, as long as the wealth is kicked upwards, instead of to the masses.
Let me ask this. We're a consumer society aren't we? Wouldn't it be better, both for the economy, and this country, if more money were in the hands of the masses, so that the money could be spent within our country, and this economy, and therefore improve our situation at home? Isn't that what the Bush stimulus checks were all about (more socialism of course, but you guys seemed to have forgotten about that one when complaining about Obama)?
What's going to happen, is that the tax rates will be going BACK to the Clinton era. "Rich" folks are going to see a 2-3 percent increase. I'm sure that this is going to kill them...
If tax rates all go back to the Clinton era, the top rate will be increased about 8% and the next to the bottom rate about 50%. Bottom rate (non-payers among filers is currently 0% or less) Raw $ is a different story.
The tax rate on the wealthy would go back to 39.6 percent, up from 35 percent.
Ok, so 13% increase in taxes, I'll use a calculator next time instead of running the figures in my head. Well above Mags 2-3% in either case. And the bottom rate (now 10% due to go back to 15%) is still a 50% incerease. I know BHO promises a cut, but is it on the 10% rate or the 15% rate? Inquiring minds wand to know.
Everything is based upon what the current rates are now. I thought you would have read his tax plan since you seem to be interested in the subject.
And Mag was referring to tax rate for the wealthy going up 2 to 3 percentage points (it's actually 4.6). Capital gains tax for the wealthy will go up by 5 percentage points but I think he may hold up on this until the market is in a better position to take the initial hit of an increase.
Can someone PLEASE tell me where the cut-off is for "wealthy" so i don't make the mistake of becoming one?
You have asymetric investigating skills, or you're trolling.
I'd just like to know the definition of "wealthy". And the proper spelling of "asymetric". Anyone?
We'll go with a yes on the trolling then.
Barack's plan says you're wealthy when you make more than 97 to 98 percent of the population which represents about 250K.
And the proper spelling of "asymetric". Anyone?
Why is this important to you?
You just made my dumbass list with that question.
I hope I do become wealthy enough to have my taxes raised, because of the Fundamental Theorem of Liberalism: "a rich person is still rich after taxes".
It is clear that the #1 purpose of government is to coddle millionaires, cradle their sweet entrepreneurial heads in its arms, and tuck them in gently at night. Luckily, history shows that the rich does better under democrats than republicans.
Conservative BS. A wealthy person is still wealthy after paying taxes. Stop being disingenuous.
Oh, I've read the plan, but I didn't see specific dates, etc that would tell me when he plans for this to take place and it most certainly won't be on Jan 21.
This is another proof that the media is obsessed by "conservative" principles. Obama will have a tough time.
"The top 10% of small businesses employ anywhere between 100-250 people each."
If you're employing more than 100 people you're not a "small business".
"The reality is that Warren Buffet paid a smaller percentage because MOST of his wealth came from capital gains and dividends, NOT wages."
Who didn't know this?
"this is still a country full of folks who believe in hard work, self-reliance, success AND, yes, even charity and helping others."
I don't think you can find anyone who would disagree with this.
The company I work for employs over 400 people and is classified as a small business. Business size depends on market niche rather than raw numbers of employees.
oscar is exactly right. The largest "small" businesses are quite large indeed. And there are 10's of thousands of them, and they employ hundreds of people each. So, what we're talking about here is a tax increase that affects the employers of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
what we're talking about here is a tax increase that affects the employers of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
I have no empathy for people making over a quarter of a million dollars.
And where are you getting your data from?
http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html
I assume you meant that you have no "sympathy" for people making over a quarter of a million dollars? Saying you have no empathy means that you merely cannot comprehend their state of mind, which would indicate to me that you lack the mental ability to earn $250,000.00 a year, which is understandable given your uninformed comments.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html
Saying you have no empathy means that you merely cannot comprehend their state of mind
That's understandable; I'm not psychic.
The top of the census bureau page states:
He wasn't "extreme left". He ran on a mainstream liberal platform. I guess to facists, his policies could seem "extreme left". Thankfully, the American people endorsed his policies.
This is from the article:
I don't agree with the way the author framed it but Americans agree with the proposals listed above. The far right which you represent is out of the mainstream.
What comment of mine indicates that I represent the far right?
I support abortion, I support legalizing drugs and prostitution, I'm all for gambling establishments, and I support gay marriage. Does that sound far right to you?
Your manner is straight ahead wingnut doing a tongue in cheek mythological liberal position.
Try again.
Your opinion is noted.
Now, what.......comment......of.....mine.....indicates.....that.....I.....represent.....the.....far.....right?
Your tag for one.
Your the definitions and application of heros and villans in debate for another.
Classic wingnut denial of your opponet's cedibilty at any opportunity, third.
Rsponding to questions by nit picking spelling and/or grammer, Four.
I believe that makes a good case. Your response could put any question on it to rest.
The field is yours.
Oh, goody the field is mine. Here, let's try this approach:
WHAT
COMMENT
OF
MINE
INDICATES
THAT
I
REPRESENT
THE
FAR
RIGHT?
Don't forget to pick out the key word in the question.
Number six, Agrue to maintain the status quo.
Number seven, Express dangers of changing the staus quo.
Number eight, try to move the aflicted population into groups that are not affected.
Number nine, stating that a particular statement can define one's politics in ant detail.
Quack on.
any
Please explain how increasing taxes on small business cost jobs. If those emplyees are generating income, isn't it idiotic to fire them? Is that what you'd do?
Also, 90 - 95% of small business DO NOT have 15-50 employees. The vast majority of small businesses have exactly 0 employees. McCain and Obama are both small business owners because they have book income. How many employees do they have?
Barack Obama ran on a progressive agenda: restoring power to the middle class, fair and balanced taxation, responsible governance and environmental stewardship. The conservatives are yelling again about the "right" because some of them like Boehner are going to be obstructionists in the new administration. In addition, it allows Bush to continue his pro business agenda for the next 70 days. The Repugs are going to try to hinder Obama's progress to reform and hide behind their deceiptful rhetoric of fiscal responsibility and limited government. The repugs lost their way, undermined our constitutional government, supported an imperial presidency, and left the US imperiled financially. It will be quite awhile before they will recover from the "era of grand deception" no matter how loud they holler. In fact, I think Limbaugh's days are numbered. Our country is beginning to recognize his bigotry for what it is. His lambasting is the equivalent of profanity on the public airways which I believe is contrary to FCC regulations.
Talk Radio / Fox News and some in the traditional media
will continue to insist that he is extreme, radical, far far far loony/kooky left wing and yet he ran as a conservative till Obama leaves office.
even now, conservative is a word/brand media cherishes.
They want to vilify him and simultaneously imply that only conservative values could have allowe him to win. Watch for the wingnuts who believe both at the same time; they have already lost their ability to THINK rather than parrot talking points. Anybody who actively preaches this contradiction is not worth listening to.
"This whole Obama=extreme left meme is just wrong and shouldn't be allowed to fester."
Shouldn't be ALLOWED???? Exactly how do you propose to silence criticism of your chosen one.....legislation that criminalizes dissent? Oh, that's REAL progressive. Or perhaps the "non-believers" should be fed to the lions? THERE'S a progressive idea, huh?
Funny to hear these types of statements from the same group who have made an 8 year career out of exercising their right to express dissent and lies.
Your imagination is running wild again. He's talking about educating the ignorant/the far right.
Dispatch the thought police, these conservatives need re-education, comrades!!!
Don't forget the WHAMbulance.
Options for the willfully ignorant would be?
"Exactly how do you propose to silence criticism of your chosen one" -- a tip. WAIT FOR THE ANSWER before farting out the most inflammatory possibilities that you already know for sure are not supported by anyone here.
The answer is "not be allowed to fester" = "must be countered vigorously so it doesn't set in the minds of the public"
You are too dumb to save, but I'll try. Make a list of the top 20 bad things you think an Obama presidency will produce. When ZERO OUT OF TWENTY of them actually happen, change your position 180 degrees or stop voting.
Obviously, all words, such as "center" and "right" and "Democrat[ic]" and "Republican" and "country" and "remains," mean, in all cases, exactly what the "center-right" speaker or writer says, or implies, that they mean.
I suggest we stop arguing with these ridiculous people, and quit paying attention to their misleading, deceptive, ah hell, their lying talking points, effective right now.
No one else is paying any attention to these fools, as far as I can tell. Otherwise Obama the socialist terrorist Reaganite anti-american weakling could never have been elected.
If that's an indication of where the country as a whole stands, then it definitely is center-right. I think people are buying into the general rightward shift that's taken place over the last few years. Now the center looks left wing, and the right wing looks like the center. But if you keep the same standards of left versus right, then it's clear that Obama and Biden are center right. Just check this out:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
Obama and Biden are to the left of most candidates, but they're still clearly in the Authoritarian/Right quadrant. I don't see how you can call their position anything other than center right if you keep consistent standards of right and left.
There is no such thing as "consistent standards of right and left". As Einsteing would say, "It's all relative."
In today's American political climate, Obama and Biden are nowhere near the right, and that's a good thing.
Bingo! What passes for "right" in Europe is slightly left over here.