So, the infamous Rush
Limbaugh stated on his show that Welfare recipients are turning out in droves
to vote for President Obama, which is not entirely accurate. Ezra Klein wrote in Wonkblog about how Mr.
Limbaugh is stating that voter turnout for the poor is huge, and that
Republicans have to turn out just as much.
However, Mr. Limbaugh kind of forgot to look at the data regarding
turnout for those making less than $15,000 per year. In Klein’s article, (linked here), he clearly
shows that the poor are turning out quite a bit less for voting as opposed to
white collar workers. Now the point that
I’m trying to make, is that Republicans are contending that Democrats are
trying to buy votes with social programs.
But, isn’t that what Republicans are also trying to do by promising tax
cuts? Doesn’t promising tax cuts to the
richest American citizens and companies also constitute vote-buying…according
to their logic? The numbers showing a lack of increased voter turnout would suggest that the increased spending in Food Stamps and other welfare spending as not had the effect that Republicans contend that it has. However, it appears that promising lucrative tax cuts and light enforcement on reuglation has worked a great deal, causing the Republican coffers to overflow with money for Romney's and other Republicans' re-election campaigns. So, in a nutshell, Rush
Limbaugh’s call that Obama is buying votes with welfare dollars is utter and
staggeringly terrible hypocrisy. Republicans
have done more to buy votes from the wealthy in exchange for deregulation,
lower taxes, and lighter enforcement of existing regulation than any party in
history. For example, According to Opensecrets.org, The Center for Responsive Politics, "Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans." Feel free to read the whole list here.
Didnt read your whole article, but if it says basically what your tweet did, Im all in.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest on on taxes generally is to define certain types of income more or less "taxable".
IF they had applied FICA to all income types from the get go, we wouldn't have this problem today. You seem to get it.
Not sure if you saw Mitt try to explain away the low rate on cap gains. He said it was already taxed already. Every time they say this in the news, even "smart" reporters like Howard Fineman fold up and whimp away, saying that may be "technically true".
WTF? How are people so stupid? That is no more taxed already than any other income.
He said cap gains come from income that was taxed before by corp taxes. Bullshit. First, is all income come from corporate profit? Second, corp profit is taxed very low after all loopholes and tricks. The corp tax in USA used to bring in 28% of gov revenue, now it's 9%.
But more, why is that investment any more special that a guy who becomes a DDS or lawyer or runs a business? They invested, say, half million in education and setting up practice. That money was taxed before, as much as other money. Why should the DDS have to pay? They paid to get educated, shouldnt they be tax free forever?
You way of taxing every type of income the same, should be extended to all taxes, not just FICA. And the news reporters should quit being so F ing stupid about taxes