Fact-checking Ted "The Republicans are not the party of the rich!" Cruz

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Full article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/21/ted-cruzs-biggest-lie-in-politics-is-it-actually-the-truth/

[AggregateDemand]

The wealthy don't earn income so I'm not really sure what these charts are supposed to say.

[NewYorkExpress]

Technically True- Republicans aren't the party of the Rich, they're the party of the ultra rich.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Both parties are controlled by the bourgeoisie.

[Cassius]

Technically True- Republicans aren't the party of the Rich, they're the party of the ultra rich.

Sorry to be a bit of a smart-ass, but I am informed by an exit poll (that, sourced, can be found on the wiki page) that 52 percent of those whose family income between 50,000 and 99,999 dollars voted for Mitt Romney. Are they the ultra-rich too?

Both parties are controlled by the bourgeoisie.

As political parties have been in the vast majority of western countries for a very long time.

[MaxQue]

Technically True- Republicans aren't the party of the Rich, they're the party of the ultra rich.

Sorry to be a bit of a smart-ass, but I am informed by an exit poll (that, sourced, can be found on the wiki page) that 52 percent of those whose family income between 50,000 and 99,999 dollars voted for Mitt Romney. Are they the ultra-rich too?

You missed the point. We're not talking of voters, but of policies. Republicans policies are favouring the ultra-rich.

[AggregateDemand]

You missed the point. We're not talking of voters, but of policies. Republicans policies are favouring the ultra-rich.

How so? They cut the top income tax rate, which helps the earned income crowd. The plutocrat elites earn capital gains. Most of those capital gains are unrealized so they can't be taxed, which means the capital gains rate is quite irrelevant for the ultra-rich.

Raising taxes helps protect plutocrats from the bourgeois entrepreneurs and venture capitalists by making them globally uncompetitive and stripping away larger proportions of their nouveau riche achievements.

The problem in the US is not tax rates or other class warfare nonsense. Our problem is that the government intentionally lets the middle class flounder in obscurity, while spending our treasure on bad programs that coddle the poor and the elderly.

[Cassius]

Technically True- Republicans aren't the party of the Rich, they're the party of the ultra rich.

Sorry to be a bit of a smart-ass, but I am informed by an exit poll (that, sourced, can be found on the wiki page) that 52 percent of those whose family income between 50,000 and 99,999 dollars voted for Mitt Romney. Are they the ultra-rich too?

You missed the point. We're not talking of voters, but of policies. Republicans policies are favouring the ultra-rich.

Fair enough (though, in my book, 'of' signifies the people that make up an organisation, whilst 'for' would emphasise who the organisation was aimed at). It is true that Republican policies favour the ultra-rich, on balance, more than those of the Democratic party. However, I'. Not of the opinion that policies favouring the ultra-rich are mutually exclusive to policies that benefit other sections of society (in much the same way, I presume, that you'd argue that policies that benefit the working and middle classes are not mutually exclusive). However, I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

[Badger]

The wealthy don't earn taxable income so I'm not really sure what these charts are supposed to say.

Corrected.

[fartboy]

The wealthy don't earn taxable income so I'm not really sure what these charts are supposed to say.

Corrected.

Very true. The wealthiest Americans have enough write offs that they don't owe anything. Warren Buffet is a huge hypocrite for advocating higher taxes on the rich because it only hurts the well off and successful, but not his type. People it hurts are those making $100,000 who have a wife a kids.

[pbrower2a]

The wealthy don't earn income so I'm not really sure what these charts are supposed to say.

Would it be less troublesome to call what the rich do "grabbing" money?

[Reaganfan]

Who cares? Honestly. If someone is rich, they're rich. I'm happy. I'm envious. I wish all Americans could be rich. I don't do what liberals do and have cry baby temper tantrums because some people aren't wealthy. How about coming up with positive solutions so those people have a chance at riches as well? Like cutting the size of Government and taxes?

[tik 🪀✨]

Who cares? Honestly. If someone is rich, they're rich. I'm happy. I'm envious. I wish all Americans could be rich. I don't do what liberals do and have cry baby temper tantrums because some people aren't wealthy. How about coming up with positive solutions so those people have a chance at riches as well? Like cutting the size of Government and taxes?

Hey, if we taxed a large percentage of the ultra rich's money and redistributed it to normal poor people (like yourself) we would have more money flowing through to everyone. What's more, these guys would still be rich afterwards. If we cut their taxes, it will sit in a bank and never be spent or invested. That's not all, Bluey - you'd be able to afford a better life yourself. There may be enough money circulating that you could even start your own business! Then you'd be too busy to waste your time reading replies like this and ignoring them! Everyone wins! POSITIVITY!

[IceSpear]

Who cares? Honestly. If someone is rich, they're rich. I'm happy. I'm envious. I wish all Americans could be rich. I don't do what liberals do and have cry baby temper tantrums because some people aren't wealthy. How about coming up with positive solutions so those people have a chance at riches as well? Like cutting the size of Government and taxes?

You're envious of Paris Hilton's success and accomplishments? That sounds like a personal problem...

[Heimdal]

I guess it depends on how one define “rich”, but I don’t think wealth is that good an indicator as to how people vote. I saw some data from the 2004 election that suggested that wealthy areas of Alabama were heavily Republican, and that similar places in California were just as heavily Democratic. That is an indication that culture and geography (where you live in the country) matters a lot more.
One might say that Republicans have traditionally enacted policies that favor the rich (like cuts in the taxation of capital gains and dividends), but the modern day Democratic Party isn’t hostile to the rich either. They were doing just fine under Clinton, and they are doing fine under Obama.

[AggregateDemand]

Hey, if we taxed a large percentage of the ultra rich's money and redistributed it to normal poor people (like yourself) we would have more money flowing through to everyone. What's more, these guys would still be rich afterwards. If we cut their taxes, it will sit in a bank and never be spent or invested. That's not all, Bluey - you'd be able to afford a better life yourself. There may be enough money circulating that you could even start your own business! Then you'd be too busy to waste your time reading replies like this and ignoring them! Everyone wins! POSITIVITY!

Except it doesn't work that way. Governments don't distribute national wealth according to contribution, as the socialist tenet dictates, instead they distribute wealth by need. The government will always find someone more needy and pathetic than the working middle class, and that's why the bourgeoisie tend not to support the feudal arrangements created by government and the plutocracy.

[King]

How about coming up with positive solutions so those people have a chance at riches as well? Like cutting the size of Government and taxes?

I know you're not going to respond, but what evidence do you have that cutting the size of Government is a positive solution to people's chances at riches?

[King]

Hey, if we taxed a large percentage of the ultra rich's money and redistributed it to normal poor people (like yourself) we would have more money flowing through to everyone. What's more, these guys would still be rich afterwards. If we cut their taxes, it will sit in a bank and never be spent or invested. That's not all, Bluey - you'd be able to afford a better life yourself. There may be enough money circulating that you could even start your own business! Then you'd be too busy to waste your time reading replies like this and ignoring them! Everyone wins! POSITIVITY!

Except it doesn't work that way. Governments don't distribute national wealth according to contribution, as the socialist tenet dictates, instead they distribute wealth by need. The government will always find someone more needy and pathetic than the working middle class, and that's why the bourgeoisie tend not to support the feudal arrangements created by government and the plutocracy.

Probably because needs are tangible and "contribution" is entirely subjective.

[Cassius]

Hey, if we taxed a large percentage of the ultra rich's money and redistributed it to normal poor people (like yourself) we would have more money flowing through to everyone. What's more, these guys would still be rich afterwards. If we cut their taxes, it will sit in a bank and never be spent or invested. That's not all, Bluey - you'd be able to afford a better life yourself. There may be enough money circulating that you could even start your own business! Then you'd be too busy to waste your time reading replies like this and ignoring them! Everyone wins! POSITIVITY!

Except it doesn't work that way. Governments don't distribute national wealth according to contribution, as the socialist tenet dictates, instead they distribute wealth by need. The government will always find someone more needy and pathetic than the working middle class, and that's why the bourgeoisie tend not to support the feudal arrangements created by government and the plutocracy.

Probably because needs are tangible and "contribution" is entirely subjective.

Well that depends. If you were to judge contribution purely (and I wouldn't) by how much tax that somebody pays, then contribution is definitely a tangible thing. On the other hand, 'needs' can be highly subjective (in not intangible) and may differ greatly from person to person.

[ajackson]

For what it's worth, Camp's tax reform bill includes a tax on big banks, less deductions for high earners (notably, they would lose the 401k contribution deduction), closing the carried interest loophole, and a top tax rate of 35% - though the effective rate on some high earners will be as much as 67%. That's not exactly class warfare from the top...

President Obama talks a tough game on economic populism...but days after getting elected on it he packed his administration with Wall Street stooges...curious. I'm not suggesting that Obama is "for the rich" - whatever that means - but it is clear that he only cares about populist issues when he has a political objective. His legislation doesn't track his rhetoric.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Governments don't distribute national wealth according to contribution, as the socialist tenet dictates, instead they distribute wealth by need. The government will always find someone more needy and pathetic than the working middle class, and that's why the bourgeoisie tend not to support the feudal arrangements created by government and the plutocracy.

They certainly support the most feudal arrangement to be found in modern society, employer-provided health insurance.  Keeping that system that binds serfs to their employers has always been the primary impediment to health care reform.

[AggregateDemand]

Probably because needs are tangible and "contribution" is entirely subjective.

True. Ratio assessment of contribution is almost impossible, but we could dumb-down contribution into an ordinal measure. The middle class has the same needs as every other class, but they contribute to public markets, unlike the poor and the elderly; therefore, the middle class should receive more government distributions.

Governments cannot even meet oversimplified ordinal contribution systems.

[AggregateDemand]

They certainly support the most feudal arrangement to be found in modern society, employer-provided health insurance.  Keeping that system that binds serfs to their employers has always been the primary impediment to health care reform.

In my experience, the middle classes have no idea that employer-provided care is not a market-based solution, but you're right. The bourgeoisie are almost universally supportive of feudal healthcare systems.

[Reaganfan]

How about coming up with positive solutions so those people have a chance at riches as well? Like cutting the size of Government and taxes?

I know you're not going to respond, but what evidence do you have that cutting the size of Government is a positive solution to people's chances at riches?

The evidence is clear when you see how much red tape hurts ordinary people. We need less litigation, less taxation, less regulation. We need less Government.

Remember, Ronald Reagan said the most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help." John Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Bill Clinton proudly and unfortunately was mistaken when he proclaimed, "The era of big government is over!"

We have to reign in spending, taxes, government, litigation...the whole nine yards. These things are too excessive and hurt average people.

[AggregateDemand]

The evidence is clear when you see how much red tape hurts ordinary people. We need less litigation, less taxation, less regulation. We need less Government.

Remember, Ronald Reagan said the most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help." John Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Bill Clinton proudly and unfortunately was mistaken when he proclaimed, "The era of big government is over!"

We have to reign in spending, taxes, government, litigation...the whole nine yards. These things are too excessive and hurt average people.

Between 1951 and 2008, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have fluctuated +-2% around our ~18% historical average, despite deregulation and repeated overhaul of the US tax code. Furthermore, most of the downward fluctuation during the Bush era is attributable to the Republican propensity to give refundable tax credits (child tax credits, in this case), rather than expanding entitlement spending.

Our problems are not really related to the size and scope of government, but to the way we spend our money. If you buy a Lay-Z-Boy, an ice cream cake, a carton of cigarettes, and a handle of liquor; it's safe to say your income will fall and your spending will grow. If you buy nutritional supplements, a gym membership, educational training, and fuel-efficient transportation services; we can assume revenue growth and constant spending.

The situation is less clear in politics because it looks like we're just helping the poor and the elderly, when we are actually indulging our self-important paternal/maternal instinct to treat the poor and elderly like dependent children.