Obama won gays, latinos, 18-29s, and women by, respectively, 50/35/25/11 points -- and ran 40 points better than Romney on who favored middle class over big business. Ron Reagan and Mary Matalin debate whether a Republican Reset means 'evolving' on tax rates and "social issues."
One of the great lies of our time is that raising taxes on the wealthy hurts job creation and undermines economic growth. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the world that this claim is true. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite being true.
The Alternative Minimum Tax is in need of reform. Conservatives like to argue that corporate tax increases would hurt small business. But this proposal would not touch small business. They also contend that focusing on the rich doesn't raise enough money. This is also false.
Selecting Jamie Dimon would be a gift to the powerful investment bank constituency plying their trade already in the all too comfortable niche of 'too big to fail.'
There is a relatively simple proposal that the president make that could raise more money than the nominal rate increase he wants, be progressive in its impact, and produce a more equitable and widely understood tax system.
For most business leaders, their current role is not where they intend to stay until they die. At the right time, they all intend to make a graceful exit, and leave while still perceived to be on top of their game.
I am not remotely against the rich: It would be great if many more were rich. But to simplify for the sake of a useful argument, we need to distinguish at least two kinds of rich: the good in-it-together rich and the bad in-it-only-for-themselves rich.
Wealthy American households are not simply capitalists who choose not to invest in charity. Instead, there truly is a fundamental social disconnect that prevents wealthy households from exercising the empathy and consideration for other American citizens that middle-class households exhibit.
Forget the "Buffett rule." It's not enough. What's more, "letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich" isn't enough either -- although it might get us halfway there.
Brown's plans to match his big budget cuts with new revenues were already somewhat complicated by heiress Molly Munger's rival income-tax-hike-for-the-schools initiative. But a much bigger threat emerged in dramatic fashion late last week.
Buffett's methodology as an extremely successful investor and one of the wealthiest billionaires was and is to act as a good reporter and "assign" himself a story each day to learn the true value of a company.
Mitt Romney (R-MA) says that people who do not pay income taxes are not accountable, do not take responsibility for their lives. There are thousands of millionaires and many corporations who do not pay income taxes. Indeed, Mitt may be one of them himself.
Why not starve government, since the misinformation gang opposes almost any form of financial or environmental regulation, while neglecting aging infrastructure and falling behind other developed countries in education?
They might have some abstract legal "right" to vote -- but not the deeply rooted right to vote that only comes from the exercise of responsible proprietorship. And besides, what does not having a photo ID in this day and age testify to if not an absence of that responsibility?
Warren Buffet is one of the world's wealthiest men, but spends like a struggling middle class professional. Although we can't all be worth billions, we can all learn from his example of spending less than he earns.
Your expenses (beyond health care, which is a big issue) decrease in time as energies flag. You don't have college costs; your food bill declines. Why does this matter?