NRO‘s "Kerry Spot" feature has more on E.J. Dione’s previous piece on the "tidal wave" of support he sees for Kerry. (See yesterday’s post on this subject).
Geraghty notes that the conventional wisdom had Howard Dean crusing towards an easy victory as well. In fact, by December it was looking like Dean was a sure thing. He was cresting the "tidal wave" of Democratic anger himself. Except Dean’s rise was met by an equally abrupt and dramatic fall. The Iowa voters decided they didn’t want anger and theatrics. In the week before Iowa I had Kerry pegged as toast and Dean pegged as the heir apparent – not one of my better predictions.
I think the same Geraghty’s analysis is dead on:
In fact, if I were a Kerry strategist or a Democratic party guru, I might be a little worried about the raw fury boiling over. While polls have shown Americans are worried about progress in Iraq, have lingering concerns about the economy, and aren’t always impressed with President Bush, they just don’t hate him. By and large they trust him, they like him, and think of him as a strong leader.
Are those potential Democratic voters really going to be persuaded by the bile, the spittle-emitting rants, the snarling, the tantrums, the ludicrously over-the-top charges? Do fence-sitters get spurred by those who compare Zarkawi to George Washington? Or, like in 1998, do they shift to the party that seems calm, rational, and focused on the future?
One other thought: It’s late June. We still have four months to go. Just how much more intense can Democratic fury get? Burning Bush in effigy? Al Franken’s bestseller, Die, Republicans, Die? Al Gore’s “Everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi” speech? Krugman not only calling for Bush’s impeachment, but his imprisonment in Abu Ghraib?
How long until the Democratic party as a whole bursts with a cathartic Dean scream?
I think the Democrats are living in another deliberate dream world in which everyone hates Bush as much as they do. I don’t think they understand that while there are Republican disagreements with Bush, that doesn’t mean there’s going to be significant crossover votes for Kerry. I don’t think the Democrats understand that Michael Moore’s conspiracy theories and Al Gore’s ravings hurt them with swing voters. I don’t think the Democrats understand that the hysterics levelled against Bush make them look not only small, but dangerous. And I think that the more emboldened they get, the closer they come to that brink.
Right now Kerry faces a modified version of the conundrum Howard Dean would have faced: how do you reconcile the need to appeal to a radical and angry base without losing swing voters? How do you deal with the fact that the rhetoric that the US is in the next Great Depression doesn’t square with rising jobs and consumer confidence. How do you argue that the US should allow Paris and the UN to run its foreign policy without appearing unacceptably weak.
Statistically, the numbers say this is going to be a close election – right down to the wire. At the same time, the last few days seem to indicate something else. The Kerry campaign is starting to make some very serious miscalculations. Bush’s numbers are virtually in the toilet, he’s beeing attacked in the theatres, bookshelves, and the TV constantly, and yet Kerry can barely hold up against him. The latest CBS/NYT shows that all the attacks against the President have led to Kerry falling closer to Bush by a number well outside the margin of error. The economy and Iraq are both slowly but surely improving. The numbers say one thing, but my gut-level feeling is that Kerry is going to see a long decline. Given Bush’s position with the Iowa Electronic Market, there’s some justification to that intuition. (Note that the IEM has traditionally been a better indicator of Presidential election numbers than most polls.) If the numbers show Bush in a strong position by the middle to end of October, I think we could concievably see Bush doing far better than one would predict.
I only have one question. If the economy and job market are so spectacular, why are you in the bottom tax bracket?
Because A:) I’ve just started a working full time, B:) I’m not that far out of school and don’t have much (or really any) corporate experience, and C:) I live in a place where the cost of living is very inexpensive and my purchasing power is equal to someone making much more than I do but living in a larger city.
And to be pedantic, I’m not technically in the lowest tax bracket, I’m in the lowest taxable income range. The bracket below me doesn’t pay income taxes. (In fact, thanks to the “Earned Income Tax Credit” some of them have negative tax rates.)
In fact, thanks to the bizarre nature of the tax code, if I were in the next bracket up, my tax liability would go up dramatically – so if I were to get a significant raise this year, I’d either have to find some kind of tax shelter (and considering that I rent rather than own a house that’s damn hard) or I’d actually end up losing money in the end.
In other words, if I earned more, I’d end up making less, which is why the US tax system is so incredibly screwed up – I’d actually be punished for working harder, which is not a sensible way to run an economy.
I think one unintended consequence of the left wing’s Bush bashing is that it has helped turn Bush into a larger than life figure.
Ironically, the left in all of their hate mongering has only magnified Bush’s stature and made him out to be a most significant figure in history…
What’s the old saying about how in politics the worst thing is often no attention…well, the left wing wackos have assured that Bush is certainly not ignored…
At the RNC convention, even with Arnold, Rudy, and McCain speaking, Bush will not be overshadowed…thanks in large part to the efforts of the left in building him up.
Contrast this with Kerry…who already looks small…I don’t think we can imagine at this point in time how much Kerry will be upstaged and overshadowed at his own convention. Both Clintons and Teddy…and possibly his own running mate, will make Kerry look very small indeed…
I’m no accountant or tax policy expert, but your premise doesn’t seem too plausible that you’ll be left with a smaller paycheck if you get a raise. As I understand it, there are different tax brackets and one has to cross the threshold of bracket A into bracket B before the higher rate applies.
Thus, if the lowest tax bracket ends at a limit of $20,000 per year and I currently earn $19,000 a year, if I get a raise to $21,000 a year, will I not only be taxed at that higher bracket based on $1,000 of my earnings and taxed at the lower bracket for the other $20,000? If that’s the case, I fail to see how getting a raise and crossing the threshold into a higher tax bracket could really produce such a financial frenzy for you. How would you lose money?
Teddy will make Kerry look small? Only if we’re talking in terms of weight. Kennedy’s not a particularly good speaker even when he isn’t flying off the handle.
In politics, even controversial figures often win over no-names who look small by comparison.
Clinton had alot thrown at him, yet he won reelection easily.
The left wing wackos, without realizing it, have made Bush out to be a huge figure in history. It’s like the old joke: Bush is accused of being so dumb and clueless, yet he somehow manages to manipulate the whole world…he manipulates oil prices and supplies, he manipulates the financial markets, he manipulates foreign countries, he manipulates the American people…geesh, this Bush guy is the most powerful leader ever!
No matter what one thinks of Bush, everyone at least is thinking of him…and in politics that is usually is a good thing.
Mark: I like your Teddy and his weight joke…
As to your comment:”Kennedyâs not a particularly good speaker even when he isnât flying off the handle.”
I don’t see how you can say that…I have always thought that Teddy was regarded highly as a speaker (and when doesn’t he fly off the handle?)…
In fact, I heard a news report just yesterday noting how Teddy’s speeches at Kerry events during the primaries helped Kerry…
And let’s face it..it doesn’t take much to overshadow Kerry…
Teddy will come across as having more energy and force than Kerry, and Teddy is even now a bigger name in politics than Kerry…
Mark: Moving from one tax bracket incurs a greater marginal tax rate that can have negative effects. Someone earning between $7,150 and $29,050 of taxable income has $715.00 in tax liability plus 15% of everything over $7,150. Moving to the next higher bracket increases tax liability to $4000 (more than quadrupling it) plus 25% of everything above $29,050. Plus, oftentimes you also end up being unable to take fewer deductions.
The tax system is horribly complex and full of unnecessary shelters and loopholes that benefit only the poor (who don’t pay income taxes) and the super-rich, who can afford to exploit all these flaws. The day this country moves to a simple flat tax will be a great day for the economy.
“Bush is accused of being so dumb and clueless, yet he somehow manages to manipulate the whole world”
G.W.Bush surely is dumb and clueless, but he’s not manipulating the whole world. His father, very clever and powerful as former chief of the CIA, is the one. The best evidence is the team around Bush: The whole administration is the same as when Bush Senior was in charge. The guy is manipulating his son to do whatever he wants.
The tax system is horribly complex and full of unnecessary shelters and loopholes that benefit only the poor
Yeah, those sneaky, lucky poor. How fortunate can they get? I mean, sure, they’re choosing between paying the rent and eating food, fixing the car or getting health insurance, but they get little tax perks on taxes they’re not even paying!
I’d be all in favor of a flat tax as well, if every other expenditure scaled by income, too. The problem with being poor is that rent, food, and gas represent a significantly larger fraction of your income. That’s why a fair tax is a progressive tax.
As for “punishing the successful”, you know what? They’ll fuckin’ get over it. Those enormous houses, luxury cars, and gourmet dinners will probably help soothe the pain.
Well then, let’s make sure that the “rich” (which of course all live in mansions and eat gormet meals and don’t run small business and employ 50% of the US workforce…) can never buy luxury cars, yachts, or gormet meals.
Of course, that screws over the auto workers that build those cars, the shipwrights that build the yachts, the cooks who make those gormet meals, the waiters that serve them, the people that manage all those people, etc…
That’s the problem with the Democrats – they mistake envy for economics.
Your skill at erecting strawmen, Jay, is second only to your unerring aim in knocking them down.
Why is it like pulling teeth around here to actually get you to address your opponent’s argument?
Vincent: I feel sorry for you man…you must wear a tinfoil hat…
So now your thesis is that it is Bush’s father who really manipulates the world through his son…yep, that Bush 41 is so powerful (in a conspiratorial way) that he couldn’t even get reelected in 92…
Or, maybe, to take your conspiracy theory further, he really planned it that way…what better cover when you are secretly running the world than to not be president, and even having been voted out…boy, that Bush 41 guy sure is clever…
And of course, it’s not like he needs the money…no, this guy is so malevolent that in spite of already being rich, he manipulates the world just to run up the score even more…
Another Thought, seeing George Bush standing in front of a roomful of wealthy campaign contributors declaring “It’s nice to be among the haves and have-more. Some call you elitists…I call you my base” contradicts your portrayal of wealthy Americans as humble, modest folks who live in our neighborhoods and whose kids play in the same parks as everybody else’s. The top tax rate has declined by nearly 75% in the last four decades. At what point does the “soaking the rich” mythology go the way of the Eisenhower administration that actually did soak them?
The ultimate irony is as wealthy Americans get substantially wealthier proportionate to everybody else, the more the Republican hold them up as oppressed and persecuted by fierce class warfare waged by those nasty and all-powerful peasants….and ground into dust by progressive income taxes. Meanwhile, the Americans who actually are getting the short end of the stick get a smile, a middle finger in the face and platitudes about “personal responsibility” from the Republicans who are all too happy to see their jobs jump across the pond.
I think you are missing something ($29050 – $715)* .15 = $4250.25 The tax liability is what the top of the previous bracket was. So you always have more money even after taxes even if you cross a bracket.
Not that I am a fan of the current tax system. It’s flaws however are more subtle.
Mark: Wow…you cite some quote by Bush (which may not even be true…there are so many liberal urban myths circulating about Bush that one cannot be sure) as some sort of contradiction to a detailed sociological study of the wealthy in this country.
You certainly don’t have to believe me…but there are books and there are studies out there that back me up. And if you had any real world experience with wealthy people you would understand this…the wealthy people I have known have been people who worked long and hard for many years building up small businesses and are indeed just common folks.
You obviously have a foregone conclusion and are unwilling to accept any facts that contradict that, and so you offer up a dubious quote that, even if true, proves nothing…
Mark: you also cite that myth about “jobs jumping across the pond”…have you not read any of the recent studies showing that outsourcing is no big issue…that it results in only small job losses here, but creates far more jobs for our people here…
Mark, you seem to buy into every lie about the wealthy, about class warfare, about the evils of free trade, that there is…
I think, Mark, that you would prefer a system like the old Soviet system, where everyone was equal but equally poor, because that’s the only way to achieve equality of result…
Also, Mark, I guess you don’t believe in personal responsibility and control over your own destiny..maybe reading too much Michael Moore and his claptrap about how Americans shouldn’t even try to get rich because they cannot…ironic, because he didn’t even take his own advice…
Mark: here’s an idea that will drive you mad:
The wealthy generally are wealthy because they have earned it through being the most productive in our society and the best at using capital to create new wealth…and indeed, the wealthy are far better at creating wealth than govt is…
Therefore, it is best for society to allow the wealthy to keep more of their money, because in general they will use it in ways that create wealth for other people…
I have no problem with the idea that a wealthy person may invest his money in a way that gives me a job that pays, say, $100,000 a year, and gives jobs to many others, but also profits that wealthy person a few million a year.
I think you do have a problem with that, Mark…I think you would hate the idea that someone started a venture that benefits you financially but also benefits them financially in a larger way…I think you would feel better if such an opportunity did not come about in the first place, because all you care about is tearing down the very people who create wealth and jobs for others…
As the old saying goes, I’ve never gotten a job from a poor person…
Mark: Seeing as you have such animosity towards those who are wealthy and lead extravagant lifestyles on that wealth: that more fits the Kerry mold than the Bush model.
Kerry is the hyper zillionaire who hoards his wealth when he could give away 90% of it and not miss it. Kerry is the guy with the multiple mansions who takes the exotic vacations…Bush vacations clearing brush on his ranch.
Kerry is the guy who goes hand held out to the Hollywood types and lives it up with them…
In short, Kerry is the guy who typifies what you hate: the wealthy who didn’t earn it but live it up bigtime while giving away a very small amount of that wealth to others….
Mark: I hate to burst your bubble, but Kerry and the Dems suck up to the rich with the best of them…
If you think voting out Bush is going to get you a government where the rich do not have special access, where there is no special attention given to the rich, then you are sadly misled.
Another Thought, the Bush quote was given in front of a live audience of his campaign contributions…and was shown in “Fahrenheit 9/11” the film you gave me such a detailed analysis of last week. Guess you must have been going for popcorn during that scene, huh? đ
It’s funny you should mention me not being around rich people. For most of the last two years, I’ve shared an office with the fifth wealthiest man in Minnesota (worth $1.2 billion) at my crummy small-town newspaper job. The guy was perfectly folksy and entertaining and I’m the only one from this town who knows of his wealth. What’s gonna kill you is how he made his fortune….by winning the genetic lottery and passing the loins of nobility 56 years ago. He’s far from alone. I would hypothesize that the majority of wealthy Americans became so through inheritance….a privileged upbringing where “hard work” is considered doing a crony search through Pappy’s rolodex and finding out good investment ideas.
“Hard work” may have generated much of the original wealth in this country, but most of the people you fight tooth and nail to secure budget-busting tax cut after budget-busting tax cut for are generations removed from real work. When Dubya had his lips wrapped around a Jack Daniels bottle for more than two decades, would you consider that hard work?
As for outsourcing, what do all the “studies” coming out showing that it’s no big deal have in common? They’re all funded by the robber baron interests that benefit from outsourcing. If you want to buy into the rhetoric of Gregory Mankiw, the guy who was pushing for major gas tax hikes just five years ago and the guy who wants to reclassify McDonald’s jobs into the manufacturing sector, then enjoy the Kool-Aid. Meanwhile, those of us still operating on planet Earth have enough wits to detect the modus operandi…..Republican politicians ease laws to make it easier for corporations to locate overseas and get tax breaks for doing so…the same corporations then return the favor by donating millions to Republican Party campaign coffers…and the lucky winners on both sides from both sides of the payola produce “studies” declaring their system a success. As someone recently stated, modern conservatism is all about manufacturing a high-minded justification for selfishness. Unfortunately, that’s about all that’s gonna be manufactured in America in the coming generation.
There’s no official Godwin’s Law principle for when conservatives immediately tank a debate by accusing their opponents of being Communists, but the same concept effectively applies. Your strawman declaring my admiration for the “old Soviet system where everybody’s poor” merely because I believe a 75% decline in the top tax rate is more than sufficient, certainly stands out as the work of a man who just lost the debate.
Mark:
Then you’d be wrong. 80% of American millionaires gained their wealth in one generation. In the top 5% of American households, only 8% of that income came from inheritance.
Every single economic statistic shows that the United States has a higher rate of upward mobility than any other country in the world. For instance, during the Reagan years where everyone said the “rich got richer and the poor got poorer” 86% of those in the bottom quitile of income moved up to a higher quintile, while 35% of those in the highest quintile moved down one quintile. These trends have continued in the last few years as well, even with the global economic slowdown.
The entire concept of redistribution of wealth boils down to taking productive money and making it unproductive. The US economy has grown more in this year than Sweden’s has in the last 30. The EU sees rates of growth that are usually less than half of ours and their unemployment is around 10%.
There’s a reason for this. The way in which wealth is created is through a dynamic society with flexible labor laws and high incentives for economic activity. The rich don’t just put their money in a giant safe like Scrooge McDuck – it goes back into the economy through investment. If we start punishing the actions that create this investment with regressive taxes, people won’t invest. If people stop investing in the economy, jobs are lost.
The entire argument for wealth redistribution is based on a fundamental ignorance of economics. Just understanding what an income consumption curve is would be enough to show why soaking the “rich” hurts everyone. In fact, everyone should know basic economics as part of their education. Of course, if people studied basic economics and logic, the Democratic Party wouldn’t pull more than 10% of the vote…
“The wealthy generally are wealthy because they have earned it through being the most productive in our society and the best at using capital to create new wealthâŠand indeed, the wealthy are far better at creating wealth than govt is⊔
Another, I think you should leave Disneyland today, and get a grip on reality. If you had studied sociology (or at least read one book of sociology), you’d have learn that an individual gets most of his capital (culture, money, education, etc.) from his parents. Of course one can climb the social ladder. One out of hundreds. Most people die in the social environment they were born in.
So long for your stereotype of hard-working self-made man…It does happen, but this is clearly not the average case.
As one (not-partisan) could easily guess, the best path is of course in the middle between sovietism and hardcore capitalism. One should be allowed to sow the fruits he worked for, while accpeting to redistribute some of it to others when the amount is sufficient to live well-off. Just being thankful to the society that allows someone to get rich should be enough to help others realising their own dreams (or just survive).
This is common logic, but some people are greedy. Sorry Another and Jay, but there is no other word. No one is talking about taking all your possessions but Hilary clinton considering increasing taxes by 0.5% is enough to make you feel like in USSR…This is very telling on how much you are selfish. For your information, poverty is increasing in the US, as well as homeless and illiterates.
Which is true for most of the world.
Except for the United States – as the figures I have previously mention point out.
Which also explains why for the last 200 years Europeans have been leaving Europe and settling here to find opportunities they could not in ossified and class-driven Europe. Even today it is virtually impossible for someone to start a small business in Europe – between regressive taxes, an inflexible and broken labor market, and widespread government corruption, the only ones who can manage are those who have the financial ability to bear such burdens.
Which is why the EU has nearly double the unemployment rate of the US and half the economic growth…
In 2002 (the latest numbers for which accurate information exists for both the EU and US) the American rate of poverty was 12.1%. The EU average (even before expansion into Eastern Europe) was over 15%.
In fact, if the EU were to become part of the US, it would rank among one of the lowest of American states. In fact, California alone has a bigger GDP than France.
Then youâd be wrong. 80% of American millionaires gained their wealth in one generation.
Strawman argument. Nobody’s saying it’s the wealth that they inherited, but rather, the advantages that are necessary for wealth – good schooling, parental involvment, early access to business contacts.
Go back and show me how many American millionaires (not even sure that that counts as wealthy today) started out in the barrio and weren’t able to get college degrees. Show me how many of them couldn’t afford both a deposit and a first month’s rent, and had to pay through the nose at run-down hotels and the like. Show me how many had to pay medical costs out-of-pocket because they couldn’t afford insurance. Show me how many had to put frequent car repairs on a credit card with 28% interest simply because buying a new car that works isn’t ever an option.
You want to talk about “hidden taxation”, I’d say that’s a pretty good description of all the little expenses that the poor incur and struggle to pay for on limited income – the expenses that the rich usually manage to avoid as a result of greater disposable income. The poor are being nickle and dimed to death because of expenses that the rich don’t have to pay.
No, it’s a fact. 80% of wealthy Americans become wealthy in this generation. They worked for their wealth.
I second the recommendation of the person who said that you should read The Millionaire Next Door. You’d then understand that yes, many millionaires did start out poor.
The qualities that make someone sucessful can’t be given in some government program. Someone who doesn’t want to work isn’t going to become successful. Someone who doesn’t apply themselves in school isn’t going to be very likely to become a CEO in the future.
There is a set of qualities that all millionaires share, and that’s the willingness to work hard, determination, and perserverence. Those are not qualities that the government can provide. Those are things that a reliance on government assistance takes away from an individual.
That’s why liberal means can never achieve liberal ends. The government cannot create success, only an individual can. Allowing the government to step in and make the hard choices for people saps them of the very skills they need to be successful.
Someone who doesnât want to work isnât going to become successful.
And that’s where you betray the fact that you don’t know anything about being poor.
Nobody works harder than the working poor. If all it took was hard work, the poor wouldn’t be poor.
The government cannot create success, only an individual can.
I agree. What the government can do, though, is remove the roadblocks that keep individuals from accumulating wealth, like skyrocketing rent, gas, and insurance costs. The poor aren’t poor because they’re lazy. They’re poor because it takes one whole adult’s paycheck and most of another just to pay the rent.
Congratulations, you’re now becoming a Republican.
What’s one of the largest reasons for high gas prices? Because certain states mandate additives for gasoline that dramatically raises the price of gas for a negligable effect on emissions – raising not only the cost of gas for then, but for everyone else.
Why else? Because government and environmental activists have prevented the expansion of refinery capability. It’s economics 101 – less supply due to fewer refineries adds to the price.
Rent control? It’s a joke – which is why rents are astronomical in the NYC area thanks to years of government involvement. Want to know why else your rent is increasing? Because of frivolous lawsuits that tie the hands of landlords and increase liability insurance rates. Want to keep rent from dramatically increasing? Support tort reform that will prevent these kinds of frivolous lawsuits from benefitting the rich trial lawyers (and trial lawyers are a major base for Democratic donors…)
Want to keep insurance rates down? Again, tort reform is necessary.
Government isn’t the answer to these problems, more often than not it’s the cause. If people could see what roadblocks government puts in the way of their path to success we’d have another Boston Tea Party in a heartbeat. It’s only because the media (with a few exceptions like John Stossel) spends all their time investigating corporate scandals rather than the much bigger and more important waste that comes from the federal government that many people are kept in the dark as to how their tax money is being flushed down the toilet.
Congratulations, youâre now becoming a Republican.
Not quite, Jay. I’m no Republican, because then I’d have to equate “eliminating roadblocks” with “throwing folks to the wolves.”
The majority of the roadblocks to success are the result of anti-competitive actions in a free market, not government regulation. But then it’s no secret that you conservatives deify the “free market” as the answer to every single problem.