OUR VIEW: Here’s hoping optimism doesn’t become rhetoric

In his concession speech, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney urged an end to partisan bickering and pleaded with the Obama administration and the incoming Congress to “reach across the aisle” and work together.

In his victory speech, President Barack Obama promised to do just that, and assured us — with the long campaign now over — “whether I have earned your vote or not, I have listened to you, I have learned from you, and you have made me a better president.”

He will, the president said, “return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do and the future that lies ahead.”

These are welcome thoughts and words after we Americans have endured four years of a do-little administration and what is being called the nastiest, costliest campaign in our country’s history.

Americans are weary of the jousting and partisan wordplay. We’re tired of repeatedly broken promises and wary of assurances that incoming elected officials are determined to put differences aside (since these sentiments of determination always seem so short-lived).

But, if we are to believe the flurry of statements released as Wednesday dawned, there’s reason to be optimistic.

In congratulating Angus King on his victory, Sen. Susan Collins released a statement that she looks “forward to working closely with him” and anticipates meeting soon to discuss, among other things, “how we can work together to meet the challenges facing our state and our nation.”

King, who campaigned on his proven ability to work well with others, noted that “our political process was founded on the notion that compromise is necessary — that seems to have been forgotten” in Washington, he said.

And, he promised that he is “ready to act as a bridge between the two parties so that, as your elected officials, we can begin to address our nation’s most pressing issues, starting with the national deficit.”

Here. Here.

In Maine, where Democrats have assumed control in the House and and Senate, Republican Gov. Paul LePage issued a statement of congratulations to the winners.

But, he went further.

“Now,” he said, “that the campaign is over, it is time to get to work for all Maine people.”

Yes, it is.

“Here in Maine, we must come together to find solutions to our fiscal challenges that will lead to the recovery of our economy and improve prosperity for hardworking families and businesses,” LePage said, pledging that he stands “ready to work with those who will put Mainers first and won’t allow the political rhetoric to continue.”

Good.

As many of the legislative candidates said during their respective campaigns, they are also ready to put partisanship aside and work together to re-boot Maine’s struggling economy.

We hope they do.

These promising words are welcome thoughts following the Legislature’s last divisive session and are reason for hope and cheer.

When U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Summers met with the Sun Journal editorial board last month, he voiced strong optimism that after Nov. 6 “ideologies will break” and Congress will recognize the need to work together.

At the time, we admired — but could not share — his rose-colored confidence, especially since crippling partisanship drove Sen. Olympia Snowe from office.

Now, in light of comments made by President Obama, Gov. LePage and others, perhaps Summers’ optimism wasn’t off the mark.

Perhaps, and we hope this is true, Summers was right.

jmeyer@sunjournal.com

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and the editorial board.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Sad to say

What we are looking at post election is the high point of congeniality between the parties. It is traditional to extend hands across after an election. It will be downhill from here. On that, we can depend. What I'm hearing, sad to say, is a lot of veiled posturing and behind the scenes maneuvering to keep in place the conservative ideas that were defeated in this election. In spite of the fact that Obama won by more popular and electoral votes than Bush in both his bids, I keep hearing this is razor thin and not a mandate. I'm hearing Boehner say that he is willing to consider tax reform but not tax hikes on the rich. By tax reform he has meant, in the past, eliminating deductions for children, college loans, mortgages, medical bills, state and city taxes etc. I'm not hearing any reform that would change the 13% rate that billionaire investors pay or the 30% rate that a guy who gets a paycheck pays. The House remained in Republican hands largely due to gerrymandering which pretty much makes incumbents impossible to defeat. I think that they go back to their obstructive tactics at their own peril. Romney, if you look at the states he won, was pretty much elected president of the New Confederacy. Sadly, I think we have a long way to go before we are again the United States of America.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Yes, there is a long way to

Yes, there is a long way to go before we rid this country of big spending politicians and collectivist that enable them. Hopefully there will be enough individualist left to rebuild the economy. As it stands, America is on the same track of the EU - stagnation.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Have no fear, Claire, HBO

Have no fear, Claire, HBO will make sure you all get all your stuff. You just elected Santa Claus of the Christmas Party (formerly the democrat party).

Zack Lenhert's picture

...I though Democrats had

...I though Democrats had declared war on Christmas.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

You are the Parrot and not the Pirate

From your demeaning babble, and listening and being the parrot that repeats the Faux Noise of rhetoric, is why you will continue to be the party that is going to crumble like a cracker and you will eat yourself up....Good...

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Always nice to get a dash of

Always nice to get a dash of profundity from the marvelous voice of reason from Minnesota.
We love you, too. Have a nice day.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Term Limits are the solution

Claire I also agree the return to obtrusive tactics will always be in the future.
Until this country examines term limits for the elimination of career mongers and same mind set of thinking, will be ever remove the stagnation of ideas and beliefs. Problems, is having the same minds refusing any thoughts of solutions but only standing on obstructionism on the same issues for years, needs to stop. When there is no movement or change, it's like watching an object stuck in the rolling waves and keeps coming back.

History has proven the only way to advance is to get out of the stagnant hold of same ideological thinking, rhetoric and the negativity. The sky is falling, fear tactics; needs to stop by accepting change with solutions for progression with positive motivation for a vision of success for the survival of a mass diverse nation. The old adage of who moved my cheese, is not acceptable for most but needs to come as a reality that changes can be a good thing for survival as a country. Kicking the same can down the road results after so much beating it needs to be changed. This election and many more to come is going to prove, old ideas and using the same containers are not going to hold water. When water stands to long in a barrel it eventually starts to become stagnate, contaminated and not until the barrel starts to rust and leak will movement force changes for a replacement.

Term limits is the answer for change, it is a no brainier.

MARK GRAVE's picture

This is just more rhetoric.

This is just more rhetoric. Both you and Claire fail to realize not everyone wants to live your collectivist dream. Progress for one is regression or oppression for another. There will continue to be opposition, thank god, for those of us who wish to live in the absence of big government, high taxes, and chronic deficit spending.

Perhaps one should consider that with the elimination of your opposition so goes your source of tax revenue. The fight will continue against growing government.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Reality bites

For better or worse the country is what it is. You cannot erase the portions of the population that you don't like or don't agree with. The Republican party learned a bitter lesson in the last election by ignoring demographics. It apparently never occurred to them that if women, latinos, blacks and gays all voted for their best interests as a block that the angry white men of the south would be outnumbered. Unless they find a way to clone Rush Linbaugh, we probably will be giving up our patriarchal ways for good. Your presumption that small government is best may be correct, in terms of efficiency and penuriousness, but it is not realistic. Since the beginning of our history this nation has been run on a primarily agrarian, rural, suburban model and our laws centered around the best interests of these groups. Nowadays , however, city folks are outnumbering the rural folks and they are going to want a government that responds to their needs. If you live in a densely populated area, and Maine has few of these, you need government services and populations in the larger cities are increasing at a greater rate as people are abandoning the suburbs. Hurrican Sandy reminded people of that. It also reminded them that shelter, food, heat, medecine, emergency response, electricity and fuel are not luxuries. They are required for survival. As this demographic strenghtens and I don't see how it cannot, the need for government services will increase, not the other way around. I think you are on the wrong side of history.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Two lane highway

In accordance of entitlements such as SS, Medicare, etc, set up to assist those that have contributed into the collective of investments from their working years is a retirement plan for most. For those that have not contributed from fault or no fault of their own, they too are entitled to those same benefits, on a much smaller scale, but this is a quagmire. On the other side of the passing lane are many on the financial debt argument willing to just throw out the baby and the bath water on those types, creating streets of bodies, like the 1930's but on a much larger scale. Government needs to be that line in the middle of the road.

A reality check and a wake-up call, for those of the higher income bracket will have to pay more, 60% of them say that are wanting too. They are the profit takers of keeping and holding on to the necessary revenues that the country needs at THIS time. Either they are help to the country or can be part of the collapse in not helping to heal and grow the needs of their growth and the country.

But that also means everyone else has to contribute and sacrifice as well. The mortality rate increasing, those living longer has to to taken into factoring on adjustments to SS, Medicare, Medicaid.
Health care cost is a killer, out of control for years and still growing, because it has been in the hands of the profit takers, and nobody will be able to survive the common cold or an infection, the cause of death; DEBT. (Humor) Again, Government has to take control of overseeing the out of control sky rocketing cost, plus the profit takers by setting regulations and oversight. They called it; Affordable Health Care Act. Something is better than nothing, since we can see Health care is the number one cancer to put you in the poor house and on the streets and death.

The sacrifice of the few is necessary for the survival of the many.

As the world and population expands, the needs increases; so does the Governments.

The so called RICH that create DOCUMENTED jobs need to get some tax breaks, if creating JOBS. Millionaires and Billionaires playing and using money for profits and cash sitting in the Cayman's and Switzerland and not creating jobs and want the breaks are not worthy. The increase in the profit takers will not totally fix the fiscal problem but can help in repairing it.

Elected officials are sworn to protect the Constitution and the Country, not just the rich or the poor...the people have spoken....

MARK GRAVE's picture

1. “60% of them say that are

1. “60% of them say that are wanting too” - this statement is a complete lie. This information came from exit polls for which there was no information about which districts the data came from and did not have any information about income levels. You are simply repeating what Harry Reid said and he too is misleading people. Mr. represent the facts.

2. “Again, Government has to take control of overseeing the out of control sky rocketing cost, plus the profit takers by setting regulations and oversight. They called it” This concept has played out many times in history. If you take the profit motive out of business, the there will be a scarcity of those businesses. I personally not two optometrist who will not take Medicare patients because they lose money on each Medicare patients. I guess the government can force doctors to provide care and not pay them, like Maine Legislators did with Dirngo – see how long that works.

3. It is a sad day in this country when the Constitution is taken out of context to attack personal property of Americans. You act like all rich obtained their money illegally. That is lie and you know it.

4. You fail to realize that the rich are not going to sit idle and take this crap. They have more than sufficient resources to change behavior. That is shelter their money elsewhere.

Lastly, your attitude sounds like a tug or bully. Remember that the international language is money, you just have the illusion the people have spoken.

MARK GRAVE's picture

This Video outlines what we

This Video outlines what we have in store. This Video clip is of a retired IBM accountant reviewing the Obama’s last minute election budget. The number one issue to all of our security, what is or what was, depends on the nation’s spending habits.

Watch the video:

http://armstrongandgetty.talk650kste.com/pages/videos.html?article=10561861

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Thanks for the Video

MG, I being a sitting Trustee on boards, with funds of 1.4 Billion, also a Treasurer and Financial Secretary for nearly 20 years of large accounts for our organization on many levels on budgetary committees and many others can relate to the math, accounting, actuarial assessments and facts.

The video is a real identifier to course corrections, and a huge eye opener for those that don't have their eyes open, but throwing out the water with the baby and the tub is not a solution. Having said that, I do concur with change being necessarily needed and healthy for us as a country, but we all have to contribute and sacrifice and not just one side. Without jobs there is no profits for anybody. Workers have created the wealth for successful employers and the wealthy need to give it back to keep the full circle of growth and success. You can't keep having the real employers eating out of the refrigerators of those that help created their wealth. I think the outrage or mine is; are the wealthy that are not creating jobs, but sitting and hiding that wealth, from no job creation and not paying the lawful taxes; but cry for more tax breaks.

Elections have consequences and the people have spoken, so much as they claimed in the 2010 results...Denial is not a river in Egypt.

MARK GRAVE's picture

1. “the wealthy that are not

1. “the wealthy that are not creating jobs” – we do live in a country where people have individual and property rights. Do we what government or other individuals to dictate what you do with your property and wealth be it little or be it lot? The concept is called freedom. You may not approve of the outcome, but it is not your business to dictate how someone exercises their freedom.
2. “but, sitting and hiding that wealth” – This statement makes me question your credentials. We both know that unless the wealthy tuck cash (figuratively speaking) under the mattress, this wealth is invested in some part of the global economy. This money is working in the economy perhaps in the form of capital investments to start or expand a business. Moreover, punitive tax policies simply force this investment to take place outside of America.
3. America has not internalized yet that this is a global economy with alternatives for all. Instead of punitive actions, the Government should provide incentives for wealth to be invested here instead of elsewhere; having a favorable tax code is a good place to start; however, this administration makes the wealth an object of haltered. Be careful of what behavior you drive out of people.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Labor is prior to, and

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

-Abraham Lincoln

MARK GRAVE's picture

The corollary is that labor

The corollary is that labor without capital produces no fruit.
You need to put these things in context. There is much labor expansion if you view the situation globally. Perhaps you should ask yourself way not so much labor expansion in America? Why do Americans think they are special compared to say, China?

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

When liberals talk about tax reform ...

... they are usually not talking about income tax reform, as Claire proves once again. I am not an evil billionaire, not even a hateful millionaire, but in any typical year I do have capital gains/losses that indeed are taxed at a lower rate than my earned income. It's the same situation that anyone with a 401(k) has, especially a retiree drawing some out to live on. Hiking that rate will hurt the little guy the most, but that doesn't matter to liberals. Their one and only concern is "fairness".

They certainly aren't concerned with reality. Let's really tuck it to those lousy rich people, those who earn more than $250K per year. Their rate will go to 100% - we'll take all their earned income. Guess what? The amount hauled in would run the federal government for about a month. And you can only do that once. Some of the rich will arrange to become non-rich, others will just leave the country. Yes, they would have to renounce their US citizenship, but its worth is decreasing everyday anyway.

There is only one way to achieve anything meaningful by diddling the tax rates: increase taxes on everyone! That's what's coming 1/1/13; hold on to your wallet. You have to tax the bejeepers out of the middle class and - in the interest of fairness - the lower class, defined as those who currently have a ZERO tax rate.

Yes, Claire, we have a long way to go before we are again the USA. Unfortunately we have a very short path to the USSA.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Mike, At the rate this

Mike,

At the rate this government is spending, it will not be long before there is absolutely no way to recover from the debt. The so called rich will be long gone by then. Just look to Spain, Italy, and Greece; the socialist still can't come to grips with the reality.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

The communist strawman

What the democrats are putting on the table is a return to the Clinton tax rates. I know that was a while ago but it seems to me we didn't exactly go communist in the 1990's and people did not leave the country in droves to save their precious millions and what's more the economy thrived, we had a surplus not a deficit, and jobs were added not lost. So all this hysteria is just fearmongering. If we are to lower the deficit further, and it has gone down in the last 2 years, and we must pay it down, we need revenue. If you wanted to pay off your debts you would not start by quitting your job. There will also need to be cuts in spending. Nobody is arguing that. What is in contention is where the cuts should be. Some should be in the military. If we are not fighting a war we should not be spending as much. Some should be in military contracts. One of the planes Romney was planning to get cost $236 billion. Maybe when you are in debt you can forgo something like that for a while. And yes I know that building weapons creates jobs. So does building roads and infrastructure. And yes there could be some adjustments to Social Security but not the one the Republicans are putting on the table about using a different table to figure the cola and I think the voters have spoken about privatizing it. There should also be a revisiting of the law passed that forbids Medicare from bargaining for a better price on meds. If the VA can do it Medicare should be allowed to do it too.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Claire, Again you are

Claire,

Again you are ignoring the bigger picture. You claim all that you want is the Clinton federal tax rates, but you fail to acknowledge that ACA is in fact a tax. That said, the effective tax rate would be much higher than the Clinton era once you factor in the impact of ACA.

If you really wanted fairness, you would be lobbing for the 47% who pay no income tax to pay their fair share for the services they are provided.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Again one sided, two way street...

"If you really wanted fairness, you would be lobbing for the 47% who pay no income tax to pay their fair share..."

What is the real percentage of those that are LOW income that can't afford to pay rent and food that don't have any tax money to give back?

You left out the other part of the arithmetic, of those large Corporations and wealthy that are not paying any taxes or their fair share, too....

I am part of that 47%, worked all my life, veteran, retired at 55, living off of my two pensions and my investments, I earned from the private sector and investments in the markets...I and many like me, the so called, 47%, possibly you too, which I am guessing, have paid and still pay taxes.

People; Remember Romneys' 47% takers...his numbers, math and facts were skewed and lies...

MARK GRAVE's picture

The National Tax Foundation

The National Tax Foundation IRS data shows that the bottom 47% of Americans pay ~1.75% of their income in federal taxes.

My statement was to illustrate “fairness” can have many meanings. I’ve propose to the readers in the past that the federal tax rate should be a flat percentage with no deductions. That is my definition of fairness; it is mathematically provable. My definition of fairness does not include taxing the wealthy disproportionately to the lowest income earner. If this is a collective like many on the left see it, then all contribute.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Obama is talking about

Obama is talking about returning tax levels to Clinton era levels. The economy hummed along pretty good(certainly better than after Bush cut tax rates).

None of this happened. ---> "Guess what? The amount hauled in would run the federal government for about a month. And you can only do that once. Some of the rich will arrange to become non-rich, others will just leave the country. Yes, they would have to renounce their US citizenship, but its worth is decreasing everyday anyway."

Plus, we had a balanced budget!!!

Tax cuts for the highest earners DON'T stimulate the economy, they only promote income inequality.

Report from NONPARTISAN Congressional Research Services

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

...from the report - “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie,” the report said. “However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

MARK GRAVE's picture

Perhaps you should consider

Perhaps you should consider the moral issues with taking one's money to buy stuff for others just because the have more of it. Using the government to take more of one person's money over another is not fairness; it is immoral.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Why do so many people draw a

Why do so many people draw a faulty cause and effect relationship with Clinton era tax rates and economic prosperity? The Clinton administration was fortunate to prosper from the dot.com bubble. Moreover, Clinton only had a balanced budget for one year due largely in part to flush revenues from unsustainable stock trading. One should also keep in mind that what year the dot.com bubbled popped - year 2000.

In fact, the national debt increased every year of Clinton's administration albeit at a much smaller amount than we are seeing now.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Two years before 2000

The Lie: Republicans have a plan to balance the federal budget and care deeply about fiscal responsibility.

The Truth: The last Republican president who ever balanced the budget was Dwight Eisenhower.

Between 1998 and 2000, President Bill Clinton’s Treasury Department paid off more than $360 billion in debt. As a result of 115 straight months of economic expansion that began after an increase in the top income tax rate — which was virulently opposed by the right — the huge deficits left by 12 years of Republican rule had been transformed into a surplus.

Within months after taking office in the narrowest victory of nearly any U.S. president—by only one vote in the Supreme Court—George W. Bush had begun to turn that surplus back into deficits that grew and grew, despite funding two wars on emergency supplemental bills that were not figured into the budget.

Vice-President Cheney laughed off the promises that the Bush tax breaks would pay for themselves and the budget would be balanced: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” But deficits do matter to Republicans…whenever there is a Democratic president.

Since they woke up from a coma on the day President Obama was elected, Republicans have pushed two Big Lies: The President is responsible for the deficit, which is nearly entirely the result of Bush-era choices that the Republicans refused to abandon, and the deficit is responsible for the poor economy.

In both instances, the opposite is true.

Using the deficit as a battering ram, the GOP pushed for the rapid adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would ignore the true causes of the deficit—tax breaks, the wars and an unfunded Medicare expansion—and demand huge cuts to Medicaid, Pell Grants and every service the government provides.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Perhaps you should ask

Perhaps you should ask yourself in what year did the economy suffer a collapse due to the dot.com bubble bursting?

Clinton was the benefactor of increased revenue due to the dot.com bubble.

Yes, GW spent lots of money, but equating Clinton era tax rates to government revenue during that same time period is not seeing the entire picture and presenting a faulty cause/effect argument.

RONALD RIML's picture

Our 'Empty Chair' beat your 'Empty Suit'

Suck it Up, LeBlanc


MARK GRAVE's picture

Let's see who sucks your sour

Let's see who sucks your sour grapes (or raisins) four years from now. One thing is certain, Ronald will still envy the rich four years from now.

RONALD RIML's picture

Lying is beneath whatever shred of dignity you have remaining

(which obviously isn't much)

Ronald merely insists the wealthy pay their fair share of the tax freight.

14% is a mere joke...... (As 'Jokes' get defeated at the polls)

MARK GRAVE's picture

However, a Mitt Romney is not

However, a Mitt Romney is not someone earning $200k. You are subversively going after many people’s dollars while pointing to 0.1% or less of the population for justification.

The $200K number was no accident. It was a calculated decision based on the number of people that fall into that group. Obama needed to turn the majority of the people against the other group too small to fight back, which he effectively did. Is that a fair America to isolate a group of Americans for special treatment?

Here is a video to watch to put things into perspective. Pain still has your name.

http://armstrongandgetty.talk650kste.com/pages/videos.html?article=10561861

RONALD RIML's picture

Look how that 0.1% and above has been getting such a pass......

Imagine the revenues we could have kept coming in.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Another Point of View

BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.00
The sixth would pay $3.00
The seventh would pay $7.00
The eighth would pay $12.00
The ninth would pay $18.00
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.00

So that's what they decided to do. The men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.00. Drinks for the ten men now cost just $80.00

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their fair share?
They realized that $20.00 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man like the first four, now paid nothing ( 100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before! And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

I only got a dollar out of the $20 declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got $10!
(Note that after the $10 savings the tenth man is now paying $49 – 4 times what the ninth man is paying and still more than half of the total bill for all 10 men.)
Yeah, that's right, shouted the seventh man. Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!

Wait a minute, yelled the first four men in unison. We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!
(The first four men are apparently not happy with just getting to drink free beer, they want money back now, too!!!)

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.

Tax the rich too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

David R. Kamerschen, PH. D
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

RONALD RIML's picture

The Rich Always Show Up

To pick our pockets

The Beer is just an illusion......

MARK GRAVE's picture

Are you not man enough to

Are you not man enough to control your destiny? If the rich pick your pocket, you allow them to. In other words, if you don’t like what someone is selling nor the price they are asking, simply chose not to buy it.

Your statement makes you sound like a weak man, we both know that is not the truth, so perhaps I’ll classify your statement as a mere exaggeration.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Perhaps you should put that

Perhaps you should put that an absolute dollar figure on it. In the bigger picture, it is not much. Moreover, call 1990-2010 payback for an oppressive tax rate over the last 45 year. Lastly, you still ignore the attack on the remaining group above $200k, which is not to be expected.

There is not enough money in the system to fix Government's spending problem.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Come on, you can do better

Come on, you can do better than that. BHO has been the "empty suit" poster boy for the past 4 years.

THOMAS FALLON JR.'s picture

Right on the mark...

Simple "working together" by the Congress was the primary issue of this campaign in my citizen's estimation. The S-J "opinion" here reflects the difficult and disappointing past few years that we citizens have witnessed in our governments.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...