Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:27 AM Jan 2012

The 1% con game in Mitch Daniels' speech

The republican STATE OF REPUBLICANS speech delivered by Mitch Daniels had a crafted veneer of seriousness in that he repeatedly called for making the very rich ineligible for certain entitlement benefits. (Tweety thought that was super serious.)

Good News: They recognize that the public relations situation is dire enough that they have to throw something to the wolves (aka The People)

Bad News: Consider what Governor Daniels was really saying. We cannot raise taxes on the job creators, but of course the rich should not get entitlement benefits they don't need.

Now consider what he was really, really, really saying: Mitt Romney makes $57,000 per day. Mitt is willing to give up his $2,366 per month social security check (that number is the maximum SS payout) as a show of reasonableness to avoid higher taxation of his large income, or even in exchange for massive new tax cuts... as long as the littles dependent on entitlement programs also suffer. Fair and balanced.

(Plus the republicans could then start calling social security a welfare program starting with the next election cycle)

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The 1% con game in Mitch Daniels' speech (Original Post) cthulu2016 Jan 2012 OP
GOP=Army of One (percent) FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #1
Tweety proved himself to be an idiot (or shill) when he started with "I liked it". Scuba Jan 2012 #2
"The law in its majesty cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #3
I do not believe Social Security should be subject to "Means Testing" Bandit Jan 2012 #4
It's a seductive arguement that isn't possible to annabanana Jan 2012 #5
Yes YoungDemCA Jan 2012 #8
For the record: cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #6
... cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #7
... cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #9
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
2. Tweety proved himself to be an idiot (or shill) when he started with "I liked it".
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:32 AM
Jan 2012
No more Food Stamps for Millionaires will make a great campaign slogan for Mitt.

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
4. I do not believe Social Security should be subject to "Means Testing"
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:39 AM
Jan 2012

By the same token though I believe very strongly in "Progressive Taxation". Mitt makes $57,000 a day. I wonder if he could possibly get by if he only made say $45,000 a Day.. A fucking Day. Every fucking day, 365 days a year. What if the people took $12,000 for country upkeep and it still would be no where close to 30%......I say cry me a fucking river all you billionaires that simply can not survive on tens of thousands of dollars every single day...

annabanana

(52,791 posts)
5. It's a seductive arguement that isn't possible to
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:42 AM
Jan 2012

argue away simplistically (which, of course, is what is required for the American electorate)

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
6. For the record:
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:53 AM
Jan 2012

I didn't want to over-burden the original post with math, but I think Mitt giving up his SS check would constitute a tax increase of 0.14%.

And Mitt's income is really not very high by the standards of rich people. Mitt makes what a top sports star makes, not a tenth of what a top hedge-fund manager makes.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The 1% con game in Mitch ...