It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by jibeho
The nation was not prosperous because of the High Taxes
He wasn't saying High Taxes CAUSED prosperity.
He is saying that Taxes, high or low, have no EFFECT on prosperity.
Ben’s analysis has failed consistently in the past. In 2007 he said the economy was not in a recession and the subprime mortgage crisis would “blow over and the people who buy now, in due time, will be glad they did.”
He also dismissed fears of a credit crisis prior to Lehman Brothers going bankrupt, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac take over by the federal government, the AIG bail out by the Federal Reserve, and the rest of the destructive pile up following the global economic crisis beginning in September, 2008.
If Mitt Romney is elected, he will be the fourth Republican president in the Reagan regime. That regime is no longer in its glory days. Demographic shifts have weakened the Republican electoral coalition, while Republican politicians have grown increasingly radical and ideological.
At best, Romney will be an affiliated president attempting to revive the Republican brand after it has been badly tarnished by George W. Bush; at worst, he will be a disjunctive president, unable to keep his party's factions together, and presiding over the end of the Reagan coalition.
Throughout his career, Romney has presented himself as a pragmatic, data-driven, hands-on problem-solver. In this respect he resembles our two last disjunctive presidents, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. Yet in order to secure his party's nomination, Romney has had to twist his positions to conform to the most radical demands of the Republican base.
Part of Romney's problem is that the Republican Party's policy solutions seem -- at least outside the ranks of the faithful -- increasingly ideological and out of touch.
No matter what conditions the nation faces, the Republican prescription is to lower taxes, increase defense spending, and weaken the social safety net. These ideas may have made sense in the 1980s. But by 2012, they seem as irrelevant as the Democratic Party's arguments must have seemed to many Americans in 1979.
Originally posted by Wildbob77
Realistically, you can only get money from the people that have it.
I don't know what a fair tax rate is, but, once you get into the category where you're making millions of dollars per year, I think that your rate should be higher then people in the middle class.
Then his argument to raise them is moot
Originally posted by jtma508
Fat chance Ben will ever see the inside of a FOX studio again. He'll likely have to surrender his Conservative group pass key as well. Poor Ben.
Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by newcovenant
Yes, it is very sad when Palin and Trump are viewed by the Republican base as the smart ones.
And Colin Powell and Ben Stein are viewed as "traitors".
Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by jibeho
Then his argument to raise them is moot
His argument to raise them was to balance the budget.
The argument from Fox and Friends was that it will hurt the economy, Ben's counter argument was to point out that taxes, low or high, have little effect on the prosperity of the economy, thus destroying their argument.
This shouldn't be hard to understand, his argument is very straight forward and he completely countered the false argument that Fox and Republicans try use.
CAVUTO: The way Ben Stein sees it there is no economic benefit to raising taxes on the upper income in this economy. So that leads to draw only one conclusion that he is being punished. He simply wants to know why. Ben, it is going to happen one way or the other.
BEN STEIN, ECONOMIST: Well, look, here's the thing. There's no well-known economic theory that says you should raise taxes even upon well-to-do people in a recession. There may be such a theory but it is cult secret theory known only to a few people. There has to be some reason other than that, other than benefiting the economy generally that they're doing it.
I can only assume (INAUDIBLE) and hatred against well to do, successful people on the part of Mr. Obama but I don't understand what sense it makes or why I'm being punished aside from envy. By the way, at rate which I spend money I soon will not be upper income taxpayer. That will be the end of that.