Sen. Inholfe: What happened to the Democrat belief that lowering marginal rates was right way to raise revenue?

Sen. Jim Inholfe said even Kennedy believed that lowering marginal rates would increase revenue – and it did – and he wants to know what happened to those Democrats? He says Obama has an obsession with raising taxes and that if we don’t get around that issue, some Republicans are going to become Democrats:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Betsey_Ross

    Kennedy’s plan did work and they voted on it after his death. It works every time it is tried, but the Democrats are kept on the reservation by the leadership insisting it is crazy and won’t work. Apparently there aren’t enough of us that know the truth because the average ‘taker’ doesn’t get it. They think the government will take care of them. Well that only happens in a free society that has workers and that they benefit and get to keep most of their own money. Then the government can afford to be the benefactor, but not now. I am 100% positive that Obama is one of the ones that doesn’t understand this. He is pretty ignorant, you know.

  • detectivedick

    The only alternative for the GOP is to shut up and let the LIAR present a budget and how to fund it. Remember the LIAR was going to go thru the Budget line by line….haha. Jump over the Fiscal Cliff and let the LIAR figure it out.

  • mikeinidaho

    What happened to the Democrat Party is that it was taken over by communists and is now the Communist Party. And, by the way, the Republican Party is not much better. They have become the Democrat Party (kind of) Lite. A pox on all political parties and all those who belong to the “DC insider political elite”. We the People are well and truly screwed.

    • Did you seriously compare Republicans to Communists?!? LOL! Why do I feel the Bilderbergers and Military Industrial Complexes coming?!? Contrails?

      While the GOP is FAR from where I want it to be, it is also FAR from being Communist…A main, central Republican tenet is that people should be providing for themselves, which is the antithesis to Communism. As long as that remains our central focus, then we are the exact opposite to Communism. We can bicker about the little stuff, but please…let’s try to keep things in perspective.

      • StrangernFiction

        No need to get caught up in trivial details. The GOP is a statist party.

        • Statism: In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

          Does THAT sound like ANY Republican you know?!? We do NOT want Government controlling Economic OR Social Policies…try another big word you don’t understand (maybe THAT ONE will work).

      • mikeinidaho

        Never said they were communist, friend. I said they weren’t much better than the Dems. They DO NOT represent We the People anymore and you know that’s true.
        As for their philosophy, they used to believe in individual reponsibility, but in the last 30 years or so, they have come to embrace the Democrat policy of bigger, more intrusive government that seeks to control us all from cradle to grave. Sorry you didn’t understand my point.

        • “Never said they were communist, friend. I said they weren’t much better than the Dems”

          If you never said that, then when you said this: “it was taken over by communists and is now the Communist Party. And, by the way, the Republican Party is not much better. They have become the Democrat Party (kind of) Lite”, what the Hell did you mean?!? Because it looks like you are equating the Democrat party to the Communist Party, and Republicans to the Democrats, and thus Republicans to Communists. Where am I wrong here?

          • You’re right, that’s what he said. It’s axiomatic If A=B and B=C then A=C that’s the axiom itself!

            Of course he has his head in his trousers about the Democrats being Commies too so you and I agree, he’s wrong!

            As to the guy you smacked in both English and French, well Both parties are statist collectivists according to the Libertarian ideal. The Republicans have been hammering our individual rights like nothing that has come before them The P.A.T.R.I.O.T A.C.T. did more to consolidate power into the hands of the central government than any other single documant since the Constitution itself.

            And then there was Dick Cheney with all of his signing statements consolidating power back into the Oval office and placing himself into some unnamed fourth branch of government (neither Executive Legislative nor Judicial, a power outside the Constitution!)

            There is no argument to be made that the Republican Party has not been Statist Collectivist!

            • 1. Patriot Act was simply a modified version of the RICO act (which was created by Democratically controlled House and Senate under Nixon)…
              2. Democrats ARE commies since they prefer the Government providing for the needs of “the people” and doing so by taking from the “rich” or “1%” meaning the successful people (central tenets of Communism).
              3. Patriot Act doesn’t apply to US Citizens (
              4. Who really gives a shit what the Libertarian ideal is?!? I’m tired of hearing about the “Libertarian Ideal”. I used to sympathize with Libertarians until I saw how freakin’ retarded y’all are, and how far you guys take things (for example, one guy told me the Air Force was unconstitutional because it wasn’t specifically called for, by name, in the Constitution).
              5. Dick Cheney huh…you mean the Vice President who has NO power besides being the final vote in the Senate until the President is incapacitated? That Dick Cheney?

              You’re an idiot…go away…

              • RICO = P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T? FAIL!

                RICO had teeth, that’s for sure. But the biggest difference between RICO and Patriot is that you must already be a criminal to be thwacked by RICO (not necessarily a convicted criminal, a single incident that uncovers a pattern of criminal behavior can make RICO evocable) whereas the Patriot Act presumed guilt as opposed to the presumption of innocence. That’s why I said it was the greatest grab for your rights by the centralized government. The Original Patriot act removed the rights of Habeas Corpus! When you go so far as to repeal the Magna Carta, you’re doing something!

                2. “Democrats ARE commies since they prefer the Government providing for the needs of “the people” and doing so by taking from the “rich” or “1%” meaning the successful people (central tenets of Communism).”

                Who are you to tell anybody what Democrats prefer? Are you a Democrat? Are you an opinion maker amongst Democrats? Or are you just positing your beliefs and insisting that those beliefs are factual? Because I am a Democrat and what you say does not remotely reflect my agenda.

                Democrats and Republicans both want the same things We want a strong economy and a safe, secure environment within which we may contribute to and benefit from the goals laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution (this is where you go ballistic about the Constitutional Conservative’s claim to the Constitution). The difference between the parties is that the Republicans (as a party) believe that what’s good for business is good for America. The Democrats (as a party) believe that what is good for America is good for business.

                I believe that. And every corporation in America will agree with the Democratic position. Every last corporation will tell you that if you put the needs of your customer first, then you will be a successful company, and if you put the desires of the company first, you will be out of business in a short while.

                Where were we? Oh yes, “…take from the rich…” Actually, it was Roosevelt who “took from the rich”. No, not that Roosevelt, he gave everything to the rich. The Roosevelt that took from the rich was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt.

                Now, truth be told, Republican meant something much different back then. But it was already the party run by Mssrs, Rockefeller, Morgan and Carneggie amongst the other Robber Barrons of the day. And they were ahoist their own petard when their handpicked VEEP, TR, who had populist, progressive leanings came to office and promptly started busting the trusts, instituting an Estate tax, regulating businesses and so on and such forth. Incidentally, the net result was that there was born in this nation a middle class which helped make the wealthy even wealthier.

                FDR, OTOH saved the rich from losing EVERYTHING as the nation was this// close to a communist revolution! Why? because that middle class was getting tanked AGAIN, and they were revolting! Meanwhile, the new kid on the block, communism was humming along at about a 9%GPD and that looked like a better deal for the worker of this world! FDR gave the people enough safety net so that they calmed down! FDR saved the Big guys by saving the little guys!

                So, no, Democrats aren’t against the rich, we never have been. You’re just plain old wrong on that point.

                3. Your link didn’t work, but referring to such a biased source of OPINION pieces doesn’t bolster your argument’s credibility. But while I was at I tried to see what you were talking about and I saw a link to a piece which asked rhetorically “Patriot Act another RICO?” which, since you said it was I figured I’d see and here is what it has to say about what you have to say about… well, you’ll see.

                It should be pointed out that despite what many people believe, the Patriot Act does apply to U.S. citizens. The portions of the bill that apply specifically to non-citizens mainly have to do with allowing foreigners into the country and granting the government the power to detain a terrorist “suspect” indefinitely without having to file formal charges. Citizens, however, are susceptible to the security provisions in the bill.

                Huh! What do you know; your argument’s credibility is revived! NOT!

                What else ya got?

                4. Oh Libertarians… I’m not a Libertarian. I’m not saying you are one (although you do tend to lean that way, sort of like being a Cafeteria Catholic) But I’m not one because they are anti-constitutional. The Libertarian model is individual determinationism whereas the very first word of the Constitution is “We” (those lousy socialist commie framers of the Constitution!)

                5. If you think Dick Cheney had no power then what does anyone care about anything you say? You obviously don’t know anything if you don’t know what power Dick Cheney had. This is axiomatic, it’s decided, all agree with the premise that Dick Cheney’s role on the Bush Administration was far beyond any veep before him and frankly, many a Potus too.

                It’s been settled and the only way to unsettle it is to rewrite history. Let it go.

                As to me being an idiot, you’re free to think so. As to me leaving, probably. What exactly would be the point of riling up a nest of what 75 people who are happy living in a mutual admiration society that echoes what they already believe?

                • I refuse to read a story from you as a response. However, a few points:
                  1. I assume the stated Democrat platfrom given out by the actual party would represent your beliefs, as a Democrat. Still seems like a valid assumption to me, since if they DID NOT represent your beliefs you would not be a Democrat…
                  2. Obama also re-signed the Patriot Act, with even more changes that actually reach out and touch YOU (rather than Bush’s wireless and remote surveillance programs that no one would ever no were going on if someone hadn’t told them).
                  3. Funny how you yell at me for stating what Democrats believe, and then in the very next sentence YOU tell us what Republicans want…kinda hypocritical, don’t you think (but you ARE a Democrat, so I guess that would be redundant)
                  4. I read that link wrong, so I apologize. I was in a hurry and thought it said it did NOT apply to citizens. Also, that link works if you remove the “)” at the end of the html.
                  5. The Vice-President writes NO laws or regulations until he either: casts a final vote in the Senate or takes over as POTUS. Simple as that…VP is a figurehead until called up to become the leader.
                  6. I wasn’t necessarily referring to YOU as a Libertarian, but rather by saying “you” I was intending to mean “not me”. You know that though…
                  7. FDR saved us from Communism by giving us “just a taste” of Communism (unions, social security and every other welfare program we are overrun with now, etc.)…yeah, I’ve heard that one too from my Liberal professors. Makes a ton of sense…
                  8. I’m not sure if I said that y’all take from the rich. But if I did, I meant to say that y’all take from the SUCCESSFUL. Not necessarily the same thing.

                  I’m kinda busy preparing for finals next week, so you can understand the situation I’m in with responding to you. Now please kindly…go away.

                • 1. And the platform of the Democratic party say that they are commies? Please provide evidence.

                  2. Moving the goalposts are we? All I said was that the Republicans were statists as evidenced by their cramming of the Patriot Act down the throat of American Civil Liberties. Now you’re trying to drag Obama into it. Why? Did I say anything about the Dems vis a vis the Patriot act? Try to stay focused here Brian Jones.

                  3. Ahh poor you, did ums get “yelled at?” Did ums feeling get hurt? Awww…

                  So you’re disagreeing with my description of the Republican Agenda? Well, I would too in that this particular iteration of the Republican party has had the stated goal of making Obama a one terms president and they felt (feel?) that any means justified those ends including allowing the “Full Faith and Credit” of the United States to be tarnished by partisan gamesmanship. But I didn’t go there.

                  Do you disagree that the Republicans want the country to be strong and free (Patriot Act not withstanding)? Do you disagree that the Republicans believe that strong businesses make for a strong America? Because you are free to disagree, but please, make your case, and present an alternate theory.

                  4. Good on you, lad! That’s the way a man conducts his business! If he makes a mistake, he owns up to it!

                  5. You are right. Unfortunately for you, that’s not the only factor here. Running a country isn’t as simple as balancing one’s checkbook. Politics as played by professional politicans is a brutal ballet. We’re talking about POWER here, and those that seek POWER seek it from all places. Dick Cheney wasn’t interested in leaving his powerful position at Haliburton to be the stooge to George and Babs Bush’s idgit son (and Dick Cheney knew W. was and everybody knew that Dick knew this) Dick Cheney had run the Defense Department (he was the very person whoes Blueprint for downsizing the military Bill CLinton followed) He ran a Fortune 500 Company that regularly did business with some very dark characters. He put together a team at the White House who were loyal to HIM. His Attorneys His advisors! When W. attached those signing statements that justified illegal torture and rendition, those were Dick Cheney’s signing statements!

                  6.”…Libertarians until I saw how freakin’ retarded y’all are, and how far you guys take things…” [emph mine] “I wasn’t necessarily referring to YOU as a Libertarian…” Pronoun much?
                  “You know that though…” Strawman much? (This is how a boy conducts his business!)

                  7. FDR didn’t “give us” Unions. Labor Unions were started as a result of unlivable working conditions in the late 19th century. Google: Homestead, Pinkertons, US Steel.

                  So you’ve heard it from people who spent their lives in the pursuit of knowledge and you dismiss it because you know better based on what EXACTLY? The idea that Roosevelt did what he did to save the wealthy seems to have been lost on you here. It’s not the popular notion of Roosevelt, it’s the counter intuitive notion of his actions. But you’ve heard it before, so it must be wrong! Smart!

                  Don’t overstate your case Brian Jones (like saying “unions…every other welfare program we are overrun with now”) it doesn’t do you any good and it engenders a laziness to your thought process that will cloud your further education.

                  8. “…doing so by taking from the “rich” or “1%” meaning the successful people…” “I’m not sure if I said that y’all take from the rich. But if I did, I meant to say that y’all take from the SUCCESSFUL. Not necessarily the same thing.”

                  Humph, not a single thing you said in the second quote validates or is validated by what you said in the first quote. That’s some serious gaps in the thought process there Brian Jones.

                  You’re in college. Good for you! Take the time in college to form a personal philosophy. I think you have either taken or can take a philosophy course. Understand what philosophy is. It is a set of truths which are proved by the facts of the philosophy. You have to challenge each and every preconception that you have and it must be provably valid based on the facts.

                  We started off this conversation (which I am enjoying having with you) with the axiom. It is THE starting point to a rational, knowledge based philosophy (I say that to distinguish it from a faith based philosohpy; oxymoronic as that is) If this then that. If “not this” then not. (meaning that “not this” does not require “not that” which is the sort of thinking that leads to “Conservativism is good. Democrats are not Conservatives = Democrats are not good” Democrats might or might not be good, but the logic illustrated is false reasoning, follow?)

                  Because it is obvious that your thinking is untrained. It is not at all obvious that you are unintelligent (you may be you may not be, I don’t know) You will say that it is because you are rushed and you are stressed out by your finals, but the truth is that you have bad habits and what you do is what you do. When you do it, you always do it.

                  It’s great that you think you know how to run the world. You’re supposed to think that. Open your mind! In ten or twenty years you will understand that it wasn’t Big Government that was trying to hold you down. You’ll understand that the Government is doing battle with the multinational industrial complex that wants you to be their slave labor. That’s what Churchill meant when he said “If you’re not a liberal (BTW, that’s what you are) when you’re twenty you have no heart. If you’re not a Conservative (BTW, that’s what I am) when you’re fourty you have no brains.”

                  (Just like the fact that Libertarians used to be the fringe left, and now they’re the fringe right; we Liberals used to be about no regulation, Free love, free drugs free everything! Now we want to regulate everything and the conservatives are all about “no regulations”!

                  I wish you the best on your finals, my daughter is taking her LSATs this weekend and then finals next week, my other daughter is working on her finals too. I look forward to your reply, but I’ll let you study.

          • mikeinidaho

            I meant EXACTLY what I said. No more, no less.
            I do equate the Democrats with communists because they are all about redistribution of wealth and taxing everyone to death. Don’t like the analogy? Tough. Deal with it.
            It’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it.
            As for the Republicans, they have no guts and will quit like the puzzies they are every time the Democrats accuse them of not being “for” the middle class. Therefore, they are not much better than Democrats because, in the end THEY SUPPORT THE DEMOCRAT PLAN TO RAISE TAXES AND REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH. Deal with it, there is no party that is truely conservative and supports capitalism and small government.
            I don’t like that and will stand up and say it.
            We the People are getting screwed by our government! Again, don’t like it, but that’s the way I see it. Since you won’t change my mind, let’s agree to disagree, shall we?

            • I AGREE WITH YOU that Democrats are Commies!!!

              My point was that you cannot equate the Republican party with Communists…true SOME Republicans are sympathetic towards the Government Control Everything viewpoint (those are called RINOs, which are actually Democrats that tricked the voting populace into voting for them as a Republican…they are not really Republicans), but the Republican Party Platform says nothing of the sort. As such, Republicans (technically) are about as anti-Communist as you can get. Saying that Republicans are Communists means that ALL Republicans are Communists, which isn’t true. But ALL Democrats are Communists, since they ALL agree on redistributing the fruits of our labors (and those that don’t agree wouldn’t be Democrats).

              Republicans in power do tend to lack a backbone though, this is true.

            • Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! That is all…

    • sjmom

      Not if we stand together. Where would we be if patriots who have gone before us had allowed tyranny to reign? Right now, we’d all be speaking with a British accent. It’s not time to give up but to stand up.

      • mikeinidaho

        Never said I was giving up on me and mine. What I said was I gave up on “go-along-to-get-along Republicans who do NOT reopresent me and mine. They just want to be part of the “good old boy” network in DC and maintain control of what power they can.

        • sjmom

          Absolutely, positively, Amen and Hallejuiah!!!!!!!!!

  • Arrrggghhh

    What happened to it? Easy. The public schools have so dumbed down the average voter that now there is a majority of them that can’t even grasp the most basic of economic concepts. They exhibited said ignorance on 11/6.

    • Sober_Thinking

      Spot on.

    • sjmom

      It’s what happens when God is removed from society. The dumbing down began in 1962 when prayer was taken out of schools. I asked my mother why they allowed it to happen and she said they did not know, but we do; therefore, its is our responsibility to turn it around and by God’s grace we will.

  • Danny Kelly

    What happened is that marginal rates hit an absurdly low point. Kennedy lowered them to 60% or so. I would agree that 92% is too high and I would support lowering it to 60%.

    Even the Laffer Curve has a supposed sweet spot below which lowering rates would actually lower revenues.

    • Patriot077

      You actually Want to pay more to the federal government than you retain to pay your own expenses? Not even thinking about state and local taxes, are you?You must vote straight ticket D.

      • Rshill7

        No, he didn’t say squat about his own taxes. He might be one of those “brave” souls who himself pays ZERO, but who nevertheless thinks it “fair” to take well over half of that income others have generated. I’m looking forward to his response from my question.

        • Arrrggghhh

          Don’t hold your breath waiting. When Danny Boy is confronted with facts, I think he returns to his nap in his parent’s basement.

    • Rshill7

      Where lies any virtue in advocating the taking of other people’s money? No skin off your particular nose right?

      How much do you want your own taxes to go up? Let’s cut to the chase here.

      • Danny Kelly

        My taxes can go up. I’m okay with that. In this particular case mine won’t go up but my parents’ and my brother’s will and they’re okay with that. They voted straight ticket Dem fully expecting their taxes to go up.

        • Rshill7

          No skin off your nose. Ooohweee, what a personal philanthropist you are. All you have to do is advocate taking from others. That takes less effort, and less sacrifice than watching Rachel Maddow while nodding.

          The Prosecution rests.

          • Danny Kelly

            I believe that I said it was cool with me if my taxes went up a few percentage points. I also believe that I cited people that are close to me who will actually experience their taxes going up, which will affect them directly and, to a lesser extent, me.

            More importantly, those people I’ve cited voted for their own tax increases.

            • Rshill7

              Right, I caught that. I was focusing on you since you made the comment. Raising the rate to 60% would almost double my Fed “contribution” also known as sequester or usurpation of the fruits of my labor, whether that labor is from my hands or from my brain. If you are fine with a few percentage point raise, that still raises obvious questions.

              Since you said absolutely nothing about the spending, your approach is not “balanced” is it? Also you ignore the “fairness” part of the whole thing. Those that pay the lion’s share of all taxes should be the last ones portrayed as those not paying their “fair” share. They pay not only their fair share but the share of tens of millions of others who pay zero.

              I hope you teach your kids, present or future, to be more responsible with their money, than you’d have your government be responsible with my, your, and their money.

              Thanks for responding. At least you recognize Laffer’s Curve. Where that sweet spot is, I would like to know. I’d bet a bag of bagels it isn’t 60%.

              • Danny Kelly

                Funny how you manage to put words in my mouth.

                I did not say I would support RAISING the tax rates to 60% now – and I wouldn’t. I said that at the time that Kennedy took office the top tax rates were 92% and he lowered them to 60% and that, were I participating in politics at that time, I would have supported that change as a means of spurring on the economy. This does not mean that I believe that raising the top tax rate to 60% now is a good idea. I also, however, don’t think that letting that rate go from 35%, where it is now, to 39%, where it was under Clinton, is suddenly going to bring about the financial apocalypse.. And I wouldn’t mind letting nearly all of the Bush Tax Cuts – including the one for my tax bracket – expire either.

                Also, just because I didn’t discuss spending cuts doesn’t mean that I don’t think that they have their place; I just think that we need to be realistic about what gets cut. Nixing PP or the NEA, for example, aside from being bad ideas, would do absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, most of the spending comes from medicare and defense; some cuts have already been made to medicare, and I think now that it’s time we look at the defense budget – our unspoken entitlement – like grown ups. We spend more on defense than the other top 10 or so nations combined – and we’re now actually spending money on things that the military itself says that it doesn’t want. We could have a military that’s just as effective for less money if we were only smarter about how we invested.

                We’re also in a recession – which means we’re going to run deficits, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The notion that we should balance the budget RIGHT NOW is kind of idiotic. We should be more focused on making sure that our deficit spending is prioritized correctly to help bring this country out of its slump.

                • Rshill7

                  In other words, ease ourselves into complete collapse?

                  What’s idiotic is the entire left. It’s idiotic NOT to balance our budget, unless of course your goal is collapse, which is true of your side and your straight ticket voting family’s side who don’t know enough to come in out of the “reign”.

                  There is no such thing as a democrat party any more. what you all are voting for is socialism, who’s goal is communism. It’s marching as fast as it can down the road to serf-dumb. If you can’t see that, you might see an optometrist, a psychiatrist, or a non-revisionist history book or two.

                  The democrat progressive party is comprised of fools. It just is. They are also part of lying and cheating to “win” elections. Scum, from every angle.

            • Arrrggghhh

              Did you happen to notice the referendums on the ballot in California? The referendum to raise taxes only on the “rich” was approved. The referendum to raise taxes on everyone was, drumroll please ………………… defeated.

              The top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% pay virtually zero. I wonder what percent of the bottom 50% of the income earners voted for Obama? And the media went ape-crap when Romney pointed this out. I think it hit too close to home.

              • Danny Kelly

                The top 10% of income earners also control 80% of the nation’s wealth and less than 5% of its personal debt.

                The math actually works out pretty well.

                • Arrrggghhh

                  Danny, for the sake of argument, if the government is successful in raising taxes only on the rich, I have a few questions:
                  1. Do you really think they will spend it wisely to reduce the debt, or do you think they’re just going to keep on spending recklessly and continuing to rack up debt by buying votes?
                  2. Do you really think that it will have any positive impact on the lives of the poor? Will it truly change their lives?
                  3. Do you have any doubt that there will be a gradual “creep” of what is considered “rich”? For example, the AMT was created to tax the “rich”. Today, millions of middle class people are facing the AMT. As we print $40 billion a month with QE3, don’t you think that is going to happen?

        • Sober_Thinking

          Danny, with respect… supporting the Democrats and their plans will simply lead to the destruction of this nation. I have a hard time understanding why an “American” would support that.

          You seem to be new here. There have been many excellent postings (go back a bit and find them) about why raising taxes on anyone is an awful and historically flawed approach to raising revenue and bloating the Government. Washington has a spending problem… that’s the problem. Raising taxes does relatively nothing to chip away at the deficit or cure the root problem.

          If you want to buy the propaganda that Obama and his ilk are spewing, then go ahead and freely pay more in taxes – the IRS will laugh all the way to the bank. If we can get enough “like-minded” patriots” to do the same thing, we might actually change the ravenous attack on others who are already paying more than their “fair share”.

          • Danny Kelly

            Also with respect – I think that one of the more severe problems our nation is confronting is the notion in the conservative movement that the Democrats are going to “destroy the nation” – and worse, that this is somehow their goal.

            I’ve actually been reading here for a while because it offers me an opportunity to contact people with views that I would be otherwise cut off from. And while I’ve read much of the anti-tax rhetoric on this site, I can’t say that I agree with it all. I would agree that taxation – like all things – must be in moderation, but the notion that it should be forever on a one-way downward spiral to me is crazy. Washington might have a spending problem, but we can’t just cut our way out of this problem without seriously hurting a lot of people who rely on programs to maintain their lifestyles. And I’m not talking about the non-working poor – federal spending on whom is relatively insignificant (5% of the budget or so) – I’m talking about the elderly. A 4% increase on the marginal tax rate of the top 1% of earners is not going to bring about the financial apocalypse – we seemed to be doing alright under Bill Clinton.

            We all need to sit down and realize that we both have our own understanding of the country’s best interests at heart and try and suss out a way forward where nobody gets everything they want but everybody gets something. That’s how we got the bicameral legislature, after all – and reviews of that have been mostly positive.

            • Sober_Thinking

              Thank you for your thoughtful and civil response.

              I see your point but still mostly disagree with you. I know it’s not just the Democrats… I blame Republicans too for this mess. I still contend that spending is by far the biggest problem with Washingon. I’d also like tax reform (I’m a Fair Tax zealot).

              Frankly, I’d like to see Washington get back to the U.S. Constitution and I strongly adhere to Tea Party principles. I offer that as an insight into what I’d say if I had more time. You seem well-read, so I’m fairly sure you understand what I mean.

              Take care.

        • sjmom

          Amazing that people agree with the govt stealing from them. Sad Danny, sad.

          • Danny Kelly

            “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society” – Oliver Wendell Holmes.

            • sjmom

              “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Thomas Jefferson

              So much for class warfare.

              • Danny Kelly

                The difference between my quote and your quote is that my quote is real.


                • sjmom


                  Like you I was raised in a Democrat household but I am older and wiser now. Talk to me in a few years when you’re married and have a family of your own and the govt is confiscating too much of your hard earned money.

                • I’m older now. I have a family of my own. I am a small business owner and I agree with Danny Kelly.

                  Here’s the first thing that you need to know about taxes, put a hat on because your head is about to explode. THEY DON’T MATTER TO YOU! What you pay in Federal and State income taxes are irrelavent to your lifestyle.

                  If the tax rate went to 0% tomorrow your lifestyle wouldn’t change one bit. Why? because of a little law known as Supply and Demand. When your income tax rates drop, they drop for all people in your like circumstance and so all of those people have more money in their hands, and they do what with it? They spend it! That can of beans you buy, the fancy ones, well they’re priced at $2.27 per can because when the price goes to $2.28 les people buy them and so they sit there. When they go to $2.25 they fly off the shelf and they’re never in stock. That’s how supply and demand works.

                  Now, at $2.27 that means that you are trading 18.75 minutes of pre tax labor for that can of beans (20.7 minutes after tax and SSI). You’re working at ABC factory for minimum wage and instead of them paying you in beans they give you paper “money” and you trade that paper for beans. ABC also pays 3,000 other employees that same money. Now if all of a sudden every person in the factory had more money, the price of those beans would go up to $2.50. Because that is what the market would bear.

                  That’ll do for now.

                • sjmom

                  You are talking to someone who has been an independent contractor and whose husband currently owns a small business so I am more than familiar with supply and demand.

                  Taxes do matter because what people take home matters. The more they have, the more they spend, the more businesses like yours prosper, the more your family has and you are able to do and save. This is basic economics.

                  When the govt learns how to balance a budget and cut spending then we can talk about taxes but until they do what they are supposed to do they do not deserve a dime more from anyone.There is so much waste and fraud, pork barrel spending and grants for silly and inane projects it is ludicrous to give them anymore than what they already have.


                • See? Here’s the problem, you say you understand supply and demand and then you go right back to not applying it.

                  If everyone has more money, then everything costs more. That’s why bread isn’t a nickle a loaf anymore.

                  “Waste and Fraud” you are working off of ancient data. Your position is Catch22, When you balance the budget we’ll give you more money. We can’t balance the budget without more money. What’s more, if we cut all spending then we cut all the revenue that spending generates.

                  Let me show you…

                  Fisker Automotive is a company that got a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. They were promised something like $600,000,000. The first tranche was anout $170,000,000 that they used to set up the business, design the car, contract with the builder and create the automobile all within about 18 to 36 months.

                  Fisker then partnered with Venture capitalists and raised over $1,000,000,000 additional dollars. They Bought a shuttered GM plant in Delaware in which to build the second generation of their auto line.

                  Here’s the thing… Practically all of the money that Fisker spends money on is payroll. They have to pay the engineers who design the car and the management to create the framework of the corporation. These people are well paid and they have to pay income taxes on their earnings. The average actual tax rate they pay based on their gross income is around 16%. So let’s say that Fisker paid out half of the $1.2 B in cash they had; $600,000,000 @ 16%= $96,000,000 in collected income taxes… For having lent them $170,000,000 which they are paying 10% interest on, so the government got $17,000,000 times three in interest payments $51,000,000 (we’re up to $147MM).

                  Fisker missed a deadline. Their cars weren’t for sale by ‘x’ date because there was a recall on the battery they were using (also brand new technology from A123) and because the starting cars were being built by a contract manufacturer in Finland and the parts they needed were delayed by the volcano in Europe that brought airtravel to the ground.

                  Because “some people” were making such noises about the DOE’s loans to Solyndra. The DOE declined to give Fisker the second tranche of the loans because they were weeks behind schedule. Compare that to the defense department contracts where Boeing is decades behind schedule and the weapon system is billions over budget. Oh, and it’s a weapons system that we will never use too!

                  Fisker is still going, It raised more capital in the private market and it is selling the Fisker Karma all over the USA and is opening markets in China Abu Dhabi and Europe.

                  They’ll pay off the loan and the US Treasury will have made twice the money they invested plus the jobs going forward. Can you tell me how that is a bad use of Government monies?

                • sjmom

                  Your last reply shows me you are without understanding of basic economics and also lack common sense.”If everyone has more money then everything costs more.”

                  Not even worthy of further discussion.

                • Sjmom,

                  Are you really going to run away like that? Come on! Not to put too fine a point on it but, I make my living based on having much more than a simple “understanding of basic economics.” I do fairly well at it as well.

                  Try to defend your point.

  • I love the deadpan on Obama: “I come from Oklahoma. He didn’t win there.”

  • Sober_Thinking

    Um, some Republicans have already become Democrats (Boehner).

    • Rshill7

      Are you one of them? You “like” the idea of raising rates to 60% as espoused by Danny Kelly?


      • Sober_Thinking

        Because I misunderstood what was written. I stand corrected.

        Good catch.

        I’ve been sick for a week now and am medded up. Cloudy brain sundrome.

        • Rshill7

          Thanks Sober. I wish you the best…health, wealth, and uh, low tax rates.

          • Sober_Thinking

            Thanks m8!

  • colliemum

    The ‘old democrats’ are dead, Senator, and so are the fiscally responsible Republicans.

    This is not even about a ‘better PR’ method, not in the face of institutionalised voter fraud, and especially not in the face of an uneducated generation of voters who will vote for Father Christmas because the are incapable of looking beyond their own personal and immediate needs. You can’t beat ‘more Free Stuff’, not with reason and common sense.

    The FreeStuffers will have to learn that where there’s nothing, there’s no more Free Stuff. It will be painful, but that’s how children learn. Usually.

    If the republicans had any spine, they’d let the whole thing come crashing down. But they are more interested in staying in the swamp that is Washington DC, and are perfectly happy to betray those who voted for them only a few weeks ago.
    But as those voters are letting them get away with this again and again, it’s clear that nothing will change, all the public outcries notwithstanding.

    • Rshill7

      Part of me wants to let the democrats crash this ship into a giant iceberg so that those trying to inhale salt water rather than air experience what drowning is like. Apparently the last four years wasn’t enough.

      The other part of me wants no further suffering by those providing jobs and those looking for jobs. Democrats don’t seem to care about jobs. Neither do unions. They’re too focused on increasing dependence. Buying deadbeat votes from the formerly productive and perennially lazy bloodsuckers.

      The democrat mantra seems to be “hop in the wagon while we slice and dice the rest of the pullers”.

      • colliemum

        Yes, that is the one thing which makes me feel ill when I talk about letting it all come crashing down: the suffering of the innocents, of those who work hard and are trying to make ends meet without government handouts, of the elderly, who are losing their hard-earned savings and who have no way of making up for that loss, of those who are running their small businesses and keep people in work.
        They would suffer more than those who’d still get their free stuff until the money is gone – and they are the ones who would not run riot through the shopping malls, smashing everything to pieces.

        But then I remember the years from 1974 to 1979 here in the UK, when the Labour Government, with the help and support of the Unions, did run things into the wall. Having presided over rampant inflation which they tried to rein in, there were strikes after strikes, so that the Tories kept asking: who is governing Britain?
        That led to the ‘Winter of Discontent’:
        And that led in consequence to the election of Margaret Thatcher. It took a generation before the Unions, with the help of Labour, got back some of the power Mrs Thatcher took away from them.

        So perhaps the just will have to suffer with the unjust, to get them to see that radical change has to come before anything will get better. But where’s your Margaret Thatcher?

  • Joengima

    The issue here is Americans always had a huge distrust for the wealthy.
    You hear about the George Soros of the world and you wish we could tax the hell out of them to save us.

    The problem is, the Tax code isn’t fair. All this talk about Fairness, it’s not about fair share, it’s about a Fair system.

    Taxes ironically should be like Justice, blind. Equal for all.

    See the problem is, the Republcians should use their power in the House to reveal to the American people, dollar by dollar, where our money is going and what is it being used to spend.

    I’m ok with taxes going to the Government as long as I know it’s not being wasted.

    If the Republicans were smart, (at least those Tea Party ones.) Demand to see the spending sheet.

    I want to see it line by line, and force the issue, why increase taxes when we can SAVE MONEY here.

  • StrangernFiction

    Only a fool would believe in the GOP at this point. Kill it!

  • BMinPA

    Rush had the best explanation of what happened. The very arguments that we hoped would move and animate people actually scared them. There are 50 million people on food tamps and your candidate is brag gin about cutting government spending? Who do you think is gonna win?

  • stage9

    You want to know EXACTLY what’s wrong with the repugnantcan party? Follow this conversation…

    “Why does it appear that president obama wins the PR campaign on this entire discussion?”

    Now watch how the Senator is unprepared to answer the question…

    “Well, Gretchen, I represent Oklahoma; he hasn’t won it there.”

    He’s focused LOCALLY while liberals are focused GLOBALLY!

    “But he’s winning it across the country!” – Gretchen

    “Well, I know, he’s a very persuasive person. That doesn’t mean that as a member of the United States Senate that you have to look at public opinion and say, ‘well, he’s going to win this thing, uh, again, I’ve got 20 kids and grandkids that are depending on me to reverse this.”


    ” But what do you Republicans need to do to get a better PR message out there to combat, I mean when you look at the math and what you’re talking about, it makes a lot of sense, but why is that message not out there?”

    “Uh, uh, I don’t know, maybe we’re not as persuasive as Obama is perhaps..but in this case you know as long as we let people know, you know, that’s what I’m doing right now; I’m saying there are other alternatives. This obsession that the president has for tax increases is something we’ve got to get around, and Republicans are going to turn into Democrats if we don’t.”

    Here’s a piece of advice. Whether you own a private enterprise or whether you’re a US Senator, this exchange is an example of WHAT NOT TO DO when it comes to trying to sell your ideas. This is yet ANOTHER example that the GOP is utterly CLUELESS on how to garner support for their ideas.

    Liberals are LIGHT YEARS ahead of them in the PR department. Until GOP dinosaurs are ousted and true Conservative leadership replaces them, this embarrassing display will continue.

    • Rshill7

      It reminds me of the lyric, “once bitten twice shy” in a song by the same name. Only more like, “oft bitten, forever shy”.

      They display themselves like folks with some sort of battered person syndrome. They seem to never have a quarter-back either because they never get the ball. They are on permanent defense.

      Sometimes it appears they should get the ball by recovered fumble or some-such, but quick as a flash, the media (umpires) reverses the play and gives it back to the democrats, before the offensive players even get off the bench.

      So, how do we ever score? The same way salmon swim straight up waterfalls, and hummingbirds hover like helicopters.

    • Conservator1

      “…You want to know EXACTLY what’s wrong with the repugnantcan party?…”

      That’s an interesting opening sentence stage9; the repugnantcan party – really? I might agree with you on liberals being ahead of conservatives in the PR game, but it’s easier for them when they have the vast left-wing MSM touting their positions.

      You end your post stating, “Until GOP dinosaurs are ousted and true innovative Conservative thinkers replace them, this embarrassing display will continue.”

      Thus I have a question for you – who do you believe are real conservative thinkers in the repugnantcan party?

      • stage9

        The MSM being on the side of liberals is no excuse for us to lack a PR campaign of our own.

        When I put Romney, Bush, McCain, and Boehner up against a West, Santorum, Bachmann or Palin there is a STARK fundamental difference in philosophy and voting record!

        The first group would sell their soul to retain political power; the second group is doing all they can to decentralize it. The first will abandon their principles to gain a vote; the second is unapologetically Conservative and vote that way 99% of the time.

        A Conservative is one who holds strong convictions on matters of faith, freedom, founders, finance, family and forces.

        • Conservator1

          I like West, Santorum, Bachmann and Palin who chose the Republican Party to express their conservative ideology – they didn’t join the “repugnantcan party” as you sadly labeled the GOP. BTW, both of your comments are an example of what you DON’T DO if your concerned about a successful PR campaign.

          In addition, Romney, Bush, and McCain, not Boehner, are more moderate on social issues and illegal immigration. You can add many other Republicans to this list like Senators Graham and Collins. Yet, all of them hold conservative views on foreign policy and thus, would get my vote versus any leftist Democrat.

          I’m a registered Republican who lives in NYS. However, I only vote for candidates that the Conservative Party in NY endorses (I worked on projects with people like Bill Buckley and Rush Limbaugh). Thus this past election, I didn’t vote for two Republicans because they failed to get the conservative endorsement. The reason I remain a registered Republican is so I can vote in local election primaries. The Conservative Party would deny me from participating in these primaries.

          Lastly, I would wager we agree on most political issues. I had a nice and long career in publishing. I know a great deal based on my career in marketing and advertising. The last thing you want to do in marketing and advertising is to destroy the BRAND – in this case the Republican Party. And using a term like “repugnantcan” only serves to defile the GOP brand which helps the progressive Democratic machine.

  • Why can’t we have more Republicans in the Senate like Inhofe and Paul? The Democrats’ definition of “compromise” which is one of their weasel words: agreeing with everything they say. They want no part of compromising, and Reid and the others make that clear; they just want everyone going along with their side.

    • Rshill7

      Free speech and the equal distribution of ideas is anti-socialist. They demand only one speech and one set of ideas these days, theirs. Oh, but the playing field is certainly level. Vertical can be just as level as horizontal…at least that’s what the level bubble I have reveals.

  • sjmom

    I remember Sen. Inhofe’s bill being discussed but it seems anything which applies to common sense is rejected by the Dems. At this point I am convinced the Dem party is about power and control and they have no interest in we the people other than lording over us and stealing everything from us, from our money to our Constitution. Evil has corrupted and co opted them and their party.

    Thank God our God is a God of mercy who saves His people. Amen.

  • Patriot077

    Somebody needs to stand up and state that it isn’t “fair” to any American to insist that the producers pay even more than their “fair” share when they are already paying more than their “fair” share to a government that hasn’t put forward one scintilla of effort in spending reduction. Every single department/agency head should have been tasked years ago with elimination of unnecessary and duplicative expenses. It isn’t “fair” that the government keeps finding more ways to take.

  • Because Obama is a socialist. He was raised by socialist parents and raised as a good socialist. He will always be a socialist. Which is why he is on this jihad for taxes. He really thinks that all our financial problems will be solved if you just take all the money from the producers in this country and give it to the takers. The fact that this will destroy our economy does not really matter to a socialist like Obama. After all, you didn’t build that, the government did, so it has a right to everything you have. I don’t know if we’re really going to make it to 2016 at this rate.

  • Really Inholfe?

    You haven’t figured out by now Democrats will say or do anything to get elected???!!!

    We needs some Republican Warriors right now. Do conservatives need to get together and take out ads in the newspapers or are you guys going to step up?

  • Senator Inholfe, there’s an old farmers tale told to me by an old farmer. As with many things we learn from our forebears, this bears repeating, and I think you’ll see how it relates to what you are saying about JFK and Tax cuts.

    Once there were two chicken farmers and their farms were side by side. As good neighbors they’d talk with each other and tell each other what was working and how the hens were laying and whatnot.

    Times were getting tight as the price of feed was going up but the prices of eggs wasn’t and so the two fellows were talking. The first farmer, farmer Jones said to the second farmer, farmer Brown that if things didn’t break soon, he was going to have to start getting drastic! Farmer Brown said, “Well, I don’t have your problems.

    “You see, about two months ago I noticed that when I put out feed for my chickens, they’d knock the tar outta the feed bin and they’d spill so much feed I could just see my profits all over the floor. So I got smart, and I cut my feed with sawdust! I put in 25% sawdust to 75% feed. the chickens spray just as much on the floor, but now itit got the saw dust in it and it don’t cost me so much! I get the same egg count and the same egg quality as I ever did!”

    Farmer Jones was impressed and he did the same. He got the same result!

    A few months went by and farmer Jones stopped in to see Farmer Brown and was shocked to see the state his old friend was in! “What’s wrong?” he naturally asked.

    “I told you that I cut back on the feed by adding sawdust, and it worked real good, so I increased the percentage to 50% feed and 50% sawdust. It worked great. I got the same eggs, maybe a little bit smaller, but they were costing me less so I was OK. But soon I figured that if I was going to keep up appearences I’d better increase my margins, so I upped the percentage to 75% sawdust and 25% feed. It worked OK but the eggs were smaller and I got less of them. So I upped the percentage to 90% sawdust because that’s all the feed I could afford. The chickens died!”

    It’s that way with tax cuts Senator. We’re long past the part where the government waste is to blame. We’re at the point where the tax cuts are costing us our future. We’re borrowing against the seed corn (to mix the corn metaphore). Another tax cut will only make us weaker!