Ann Coulter Says GOP Should Give In To Obama On Taxes: 'We Lost The Election'

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#1
Ann Coulter Says GOP Should Give In To Obama On Taxes: 'We Lost The Election' (VIDEO)

Posted: 12/06/2012 7:46 am EST Updated: 12/07/2012 3:19 am EST

Ann Coulter shocked Sean Hannity on Wednesday when she conceded that she thinks Republicans should let tax rates for the rich go up.

House Republicans are currently battling President Obama over whether or not to hike taxes on the top 2 percent of earners in the negotiations over the so-called "fiscal cliff."

After Coulter started to say that Republicans should concede on taxes on the very rich, Hannity wondered why the House didn't just pass a bill extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

"OK fine, let's do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone's taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it," she said. "It doesn't mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans."

"So are you saying that, for PR purposes, that they should give in to Obama on the tax rate?" Hannity asked.

"Not exactly, I--" Coulter said, before stopping herself and saying, "Well, yeah, I guess I am."

"You're saying capitulate to Obama?" Hannity stammered. "We don't have a revenue problem, Ann."

"We lost the election, Sean!" Coulter replied.

Other right-wing pundits, such as Bill Kristol, have echoed Coulter's argument. Kristol famously said that it wouldn't "kill the country" if taxes on millionaires went up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/ann-coulter-gop-taxes-obama-hannity_n_2249545.html
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#4
On strategic grounds, she's right. Of course no matter what happens, the media is going to demonize Republicans. They might as well stand up for the right thing for a change, and fight the increase.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Jan 12, 2010
36,211
21,806
398
Northern California
#5
Increased taxes gives Coulter more to talk about. Total revenue is often reduced as taxes rise, things will get worse without massive cuts (which don't appear to be happening), etc. I think she's going for a "told you so" scenario.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Oct 26, 2011
24,751
15,131
303
#6
She did not discuss Republican complicity in the country becoming non-White but she at least acknowledged the demographic problem in an article and stated in no uncertain terms that all the Republican action to get "natural GOP voter" Hispanics to vote for them is totally futile. So, good for her for at least admitting the foolishness of Hispandering.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/05/america-nears-a-demographic-tipping-point/


More than half of all babies born to Hispanic women today are illegitimate. The birthrate of Hispanic women is twice that of the rest of the population, and their unwed birthrate is one and a half times that of blacks.
That’s a lot of government dependents coming down the pike. No amount of “reaching out” to the Hispanic community, effective “messaging” or Reagan’s “optimism” is going to turn Mexico’s underclass into Republicans.
 
Likes: Party Rooster

f kane

Known Traffic Menace
Feb 10, 2010
798
234
148
#9
She's right. Even people that had Romney losing predicted he'd win alot more districts and states that he did. The (perceived) anti-tax stance is a losing one when it comes to getting elected.

Sadly the writing is on the wall. The lib media has won. Anyone who is anti-tax is now a racist.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,105
12,895
373
Atlanta, GA
#10
This is absolute revisionist bullshit. People didn't refuse to vote for Romney because being anti-tax increase has become a losing premise. It's the opposite. They didn't vote for him because they didn't trust him to follow through on his promises. They saw through him and his campaign, seeing his "flexibility" on many issues as a cynical political ploy (which it was).

Ann is proving a long-standing point of mine about republicans valuing winning over everything else. That reminds me of another party I know. I hope the RNC does cave on taxes just so people can see once and for all how the Republican Party is just the Democratic Party with more Jesus.
 

f kane

Known Traffic Menace
Feb 10, 2010
798
234
148
#11
This is absolute revisionist bullshit. People didn't refuse to vote for Romney because being anti-tax increase has become a losing premise. It's the opposite. They didn't vote for him because they didn't trust him to follow through on his promises. They saw through him and his campaign, seeing his "flexibility" on many issues as a cynical political ploy (which it was).

Ann is proving a long-standing point of mine about republicans valuing winning over everything else. That reminds me of another party I know. I hope the RNC does cave on taxes just so people can see once and for all how the Republican Party is just the Democratic Party with more Jesus.

Not being flexible would result in the Republicans not winning and then being reduced to little more than a Washington think tank in the future.

Romney not being trusted by Republican voters was far down on the list; I think the 47 percent cell phone video solved that problem. They successfully tagged Romney a a racist anti-tax white man who did not peel off any Hispanic vote and surely no black votes in his electoral loss.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#14
Coulter and the GOP are both shit. They should die and fertilize something new. The sooner the better.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
12,741
2,886
258
Sunnydale
#16
I like that they can disagree with each other, unlike the democrats who are a hive mind.

I say give Obama everything he wants, if people want socialism which leads to genocide, let them have it. But guess what? The IMF and world bank who bailout all of these socialist countries get a majority of the bailout money from the US tax payer so no bailout for the US tax payer.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,105
12,895
373
Atlanta, GA
#18
if every decision made is all posturing for your party, why not work with obama and when he fails, the people will vote for your party because it's not your fault the party you worked with failed.
Better idea for the RNC: If every decision is posturing for your party, why not just shut the fuck up about things getting worse since you don't actually care about fixing it or doing the right (no pun intended) thing.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#19
I say give Obama everything he wants, if people want socialism which leads to genocide, let them have it.
I'll take the socialism that explicitly leads to genocide. Fuck that implicit cause and effect shit, that version of genocide's for faggots.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#20
we need to go over the "fiscal cliff".... reduce spending and up revenue and take a very small step towards reducing the deficit? Ok.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#22
"Upping revenue" is double-speak for "raise taxes". Fuck that. That's one of the biggest problems.

yes, we need to raise taxes. They are at an near historic low.

remember the whole "half the country doesnt pay taxes" gag? we need to raise taxes.

we cant balance the budget by raising taxes or cutting spending alone. The result of either wouldnt be acceptable to anyone. So the answer is to do both in moderation. Not hard to understand.
 
Last edited:

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Oct 26, 2011
24,751
15,131
303
#23
Well, welfare spending is at an all time high and same with the disability, food stamp and section 8 rolls. Will these people be asked to take a "fair share" in the same way that "the rich" are asked to give up a "fair share."
Tell me the fairness in the means tested welfare at a federal level going up over 30 percent to more than 700 billion a year and then you demand that the taxpayers give even more for that extravagant theft and class/race redistribution?
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#24
Cut spending across the board
raise taxes across the board


doing either one alone is not a viable solution. Do them together and it can start to get us close to balancing the budget. Not hard to figure out.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,074
328
#25
Cut spending across the board
raise taxes across the board


doing either one alone is not a viable solution. Do them together and it can start to get us close to balancing the budget. Not hard to figure out.
There's a reason why your logic is so simple: it's because you're ignoring reality in favor of simplistic, retarded fantasies like the notion that taxation is an infinite source of government revenue.

Reality is a little more complicated than that. For instance,

Fact of reality nr.1: if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, nominal income taxes in several states would be above 50% for high earners. When the UK raised its income taxes on high earners to 50%, the rich simply left the country and government revenues dropped.

Fact of reality nr. 2: shortly after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, federal government revenues actually started rising, proving that lower taxes don't mean less revenue.

Fact of reality nr. 3: federal taxation in the US have been hovering around 17% of GDP, with very little variation, throughout the past 60 years. That's true for when income taxes on the rich were under 20%, and also true for when those same income taxes were at 90%, proving that tax rates on high earners don't significantly affect revenues.


How does that fit into your "not hard to figure out" theory?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom