But it’s hard to fathom how households all over the country can find the time or energy to care about the impeachment of a former president as their kids remain out of school and away from their peers. Every Republican should be hammering this issue right now, everywhere, on every network TV appearance and Twitter feed. Fighting with the media about Donald Trump will not automatically lead to midterm victories next year. Fighting for parents across this country might.
Here’s a tip for GOP politicians on how to respond when CNN reporter Manu Raju pulls his ‘chasing Republicans through the halls of Congress’ act to ask them about the nutty tweets of a random House member of whom a majority of Americans have never heard. Look right down the barrel of the camera and tell parents that they have a choice, if they want it — you no longer have to be beholden to the protest and strike whims of teachers’ unions, who have demonstrated that they have been given far too much power and influence by our public officials for far too long.
Republican members of Congress should be talking about nothing else. Not Donald Trump. Not impeachment. Not QAnon tweets. Nothing. It is clear that President Biden has abandoned the parents of schoolchildren who voted for him for a little peace and quiet coming from Washington, because that is who Joe Biden is and always has been.
This is something I learned a long time ago with this blog and every seasoned public figure knows… just because someone asks you something doesn’t mean that you have to answer them. You can ignore them or use the platform they just handed you to say what you want. As long as Republicans are in a persistent defensive crouch, they will cede thought leadership on these important issues to the Democrats.
Sadly, most Republicans would rather get along with the media than confront the media and their lies and spin.
There are a few but not many.
And if they confront the media, they probably won’t be asked back or the will ignore them.
It is past time to move past petty politics. This guy is advocating hammering democrats because some of them our teachers who think we should be doing virtual school. This is NOT important issue and will resolve it self soon anyways.
I am willing, to support any politician, democratic, republican or independent, who supports either of the following:
1) Taxing the rich to pay off the debt.
2) Ending the perpetual wars, the us surveillance state, and the enormous war budget (I refuse to call it the “defense budget”.
Republicans and Democratic Politicians are unwilling to support these measures where do you stand on them?
Look Max: you need to polish your Troll-Skillz.
Gee Maxwell, on the war issue, you must have loved President Trump.
Maxwell, what would taxing the rich actually accomplish?
And what tax rate would you suggest?
MaxLowIQ warbles: “It is past time to move past petty politics.”
… by regurgitating old, worn, inane leftist talking points.
Yup, that’ll work.
I do not respond to Trolls and I do not troll. But to answer Mar’s question. I think that we need to restore the New Deal Top marginal tax rate of 91%.
For this to happen taxing the rich has to be a bi-partisan grass roots effort. What would it accomplish?
With the current enormous Federal debt, I believe that the only way to stop hyperinflation from happening is to tax the rich and pay back the debt.
How do you propose stopping hyperinflation?
Maxwell, how about lowering spending? Across the board spending, including the military and social welfare programs.
I believe even if you tax 100 of top 40% richest, you will not put a dent in the deficit or debt.
I do agree with you, we are heading for a Greece like hyperinflation if the feds don’t start acting responsibly.
Mar,
I am not sure what “I believe even if you tax 100 of top 40%…” means. Are you taxing them 100%? or do you mean to say only tax the top 100 richest?
Decreasing spending is not enough. Why are people against taxing the rich? I do not understand none of you are rich. The rich buy and sell our politicians, rig our elections, and influence our judicial system.
There was a rich guy in Hollywood who got away with raping over 80 people before he went to jail. He had so much money that no individuals could stand up to him.
What is wrong in your mind with saying that no one should have more than 20 million in assets?
Maxwell, your jealousy and greed from other people’s success is disgusting to anyone who has worked for anything in their lives – whether they are rich or poor – it’s disgusting to them.
“There was a rich guy in Hollywood who got away with raping over 80 people before he went to jail.”
Except he is in jail, if you are talking about Weinstein or Cosby.
Yes, there are examples of the rich abusing the system but is it because they have money or because they are just bad people who would do bad things regardless if they had money or not.
I guess that is a sociologist question.
And there are plenty of poor people who also rape, murder, Rob etc.
As far as to what I meant, you were right when you said the top 40% of the top earners were taxed 100%.
I guess that is a sociologist question.
No, it’s not. It’s a question answered in Genesis: original sin.
Jason,
It is not greed or jealousy. How much more can one person produce in goods or services than another?
If no one can produce ten times the value of good and services as another. Yet their are people who receive that much that in income, a 100 or even 1000 times or more.
The people who get these huge incomes are not brilliant engineers, inventors or doctors who contribute new things to society, but rather they people who get paid money because they have money. This money is called interest, or sometimes they may receive through stocks, and some of them sit on the board of directors or act as CEO’s where they earn large salaries off the backs of their workers. If the workers are lucky the CEO/Board doesn’t run the company into the ground through ineptitude or corruption; making the workers pensions disappear.
This inequality produces a strata of society that can flout the laws with relative impunity. Harvey Weinstein raped over 80 women, they all new him and could identify him, but because of his wealth and power, he got away with it for years.
Brock Turner was able to get probation after his sexual assault because he too be longed to the special strata of our society.
Billionaires have too much power, they can buy up politicians and control the media. Our society cannot be free and democratic when such inequalities exist.
Even if I have all the material wealth that I need, I am harmed by individuals with so much money that they can corrupt our legislative and judicial system.
Maxxy, yes it is. You are a disgusting human being.
Actually, Maxwell does have a point. Look at the social media corporations. Twitter, Facebook and Google. They have way too much power and they use their power against conservatives.
I would support a 95% tax on these clowns, from the CEO down to the custodian.
I actually fall closer to Maxwell’s side on this. When you can get so rich that you can AFFORD to change the rules for yourself, not only in flouting laws, but to make new laws to protect your wealth and inhibit others from making it then I think the wealthy class needs to be pulled back in line.
I disagree with using taxes, however, as the wealthy routinely influence the laws to not include them. Maxwell’s solution invalidates itself by its own words (If you admit they control Gov’t, you can hardly expect that tax brackets would not have loopholes for the true targets of the taxes). In addition, the high tax brackets of the cold war only worked because the super rich could not move their businesses outside the country then like they can today. That suggestion is valueless under the current circumstances.
The super wealthy work easily outside normal laws or barely within the laws they had Government make specifically for them. There will be places they can hide wealth. The 91% tax bracket would be barren of the people we would want to see taxed. It would have nothing but doctors or new wealth that has not bought Gov’t protection yet. The Bezos’ and Zuckerbergs of the world would be virtually untouched.
Tuerqas,
I understand what you said, but I do think we need to be defeatist. Yes, raising taxes on the super rich will be incredibly hard, yes they will try and hide their money.
However, I believe that we can and should tax the super rich. One of the plus sides of having a military industrial complex / surveillance state is that it can track down and prosecute tax cheats anywhere.
We still have the power to vote as a people we can decide that it is okay for society to have rich people with beach houses and fancy cars (<100 million) but not okay to have super rich people who can subvert and co-op our judicial and legislative bodies
:* ( “I do not think we need to be defeatist”
I miss writing on actual paper, I never made so many mistakes with an actual pen or pencil.
It is not defeatist to be pragmatic. No one world wide is effectively taxing the super-rich and that will continue as long as there is economic competition between nations. It is just basic fact that if a multi-billionaire can save a number of millions by changing his bank and primary residence or corporate HQ to the Caymens, there is a good chance he will. At that point he will begin paying less to the US than he does now under the current broken system.
It is not a question of ‘hard’, it is more a question of impossibility and illegality. Global mobility and international tax limitations could make it perfectly possible for Bezos to legally hide his money even if you could take out all of the special tax laws currently in the books exclusively for him and his earnings class. And that would take a clean Congress and President. I doubt there are 4 members of Congress who would push for a tax law simplification. Don’t forget that every nationally elected official that keeps his job for 8 years or more leaves a multi-millionaire, no matter his financial standing going in. They just are not going to tax themselves or their patrons.