Koster, Larsen campaigns trade barbs on campaign donations
Koster
In one corner, Koster and the National Republican Congressional Committee are swinging at the Everett congressman for accepting $24,000 in contributions from a political action committee controlled by U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, who faces multiple ethics violations in the House.
Rep. Larsen
The political sparring even at this more local level has the feel of a big-media national race where heated rhetoric and spin can often be the norm from all camps.
“Numerous people in his caucus have given (the Rangel) contributions to charity, have taken this issue off the table,” said Koster campaign spokesman Matt Parker of Larsen. “This is not going to be a pretty situation for (Larsen’s) party. (Rangel) is the man his own party picked to write tax law for the country, who did not pay his own taxes.”
It’s right out of the national Republicans’ playbook who have, according to Politico, vowed to make Rangel a centerpiece in this year’s mid-term election.
Larsen campaign manager Brooke Davis said that the congressman won’t return the contributions from Rangel’s Political Action Committee, but he is urging the New York representative to resign from office.
Davis provided no reason why Larsen won’t return the campaign contributions.
Instead, she turned the focus back to Koster’s contributions from the 2000 election when the Republican and Larsen last sought a then-open 2nd Congressional Seat.
“John Koster has his own problems. Will he return the money from former Rep. Randy Cunningham who is currently sitting in federal prison? Will he return money he received from former Rep. Tom Delay who was indicted on felony conspiracy charges?” she said. “When (Koster) asked Rick Larsen to return any Rangel money, I think he opened the door to being asked the exact same questions that he’s requested answers to.”
Cunningham is in prison after being convicted of providing graft to supporters as a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Some of the issues dated all the way back to at least 1997, though the issues wouldn’t be revealed until 2005, far after Koster received the donations from the American Prosperity PAC, which isn’t active this election cycle.
“Duke Cunningham has been in jail for a long time,” Parker responded to the Larsen camp’s criticism.
It’s been a decade since Koster received those contributions, Parker points out, during a completely different race. And in this one, the Republican’s say, 96 percent of Koster’s contributions come from individuals in Washington state.
Larsen, by comparison, has a dearth of PAC money – about 56.5 percent – with a significant majority of it coming from outside of the state.
He’s not out of line with other incumbent members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who enjoy an average of $870,000 more in contributions than their challengers, according to non-partisan campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org.
Meanwhile, Larsen’s campaign is raising questions about the accuracy of campaign polling being done by Koster’s campaign.
In one poll, where Koster’s campaign sent out a notice to supporters about the very favorable results, Larsen’s campaign said the congressman actually ended up getting called by the automated survey.
The 12-question poll happened to refer to Rep. Larsen as a Republican, they said.
That error was confirmed by Fritz Wenzel, an Ohio-based Republican pollster who owns polling firm Wenzel Strategies, who did the work for the Koster campaign. Wenzel also is a former reporter at The Oregonian and columnist at The Toledo Blade.
But Wenzel said the error was caught, and he ended up taking a hit on his own expenses by having to redo the poll. Wenzel said the information released by the Koster campaign was not from the erroneous polling data, but the new, accurate information.
Parker defended the polling, and said it wasn’t meant for consumption by the media, only for supporters.
But the Koster spokesman also said that a press release will be sent out within the next few days for another poll that Wenzel recently did that also shows favorability.
Davis, over at Larsen’s campaign office, said for the second poll she ended up getting called by the next Wenzel robo-poll at campaign headquarters.
She said, though, that in taking the poll that at question 25 she was unable to answer it, and after several times of it asking for her answer, the automated system hung up on her.
Davis said campaign supporters have called into the office to say they, too, were called by the poll and that they also were hung up on, though at different questions in the survey.
“Once again, it leads me to question the accuracy of their results,” Davis said.
Parker defended the work of Wenzel, who said he’s considered “one of the best in the country.”
“If Rick Larsen doesn’t want to believe our polls, that’s fine,” he said. “I could (sic) care less what Rick Larsen thinks about our polls.”
Parker said the campaign polling is generally done for internal campaign purposes, though he admitted they will be sending out the next data for media consumption as well.
He also criticized Larsen’s campaign for paying $25,000 this last quarter for internal campaign polling that they haven’t released the information on, asking what Larsen’s campaign has to hide.
“Have we seen one iota of any talk about the polls that Rick Larsen has done?” Parker said.
Davis said the campaign has done polling every election since 1999, and they never release their internal data.
“That holds true today,” she said.
Parker didn’t answer the question when asked if the Koster campaign, since they’re releasing positive polling from their Republican Wenzel’s firm, would release information if the tides turned in their polling information.
Instead, he criticized Larsen for voting for the federal healthcare law signed by President Obama and on other issues involving the federal budget and taxes.
“It’s definitely positive,” Parker said of the Koster’s polling. “We’ve seen with every poll that’s been done throughout this entire campaign. Part of it is he’s so out of touch with the voters in his district.”
Davis argued, however, that the main line of Larsen’s campaign office isn’t linked to a registered voter.
“It leads us to wonder who else is on the list,” she said.
Facebook Fan page
July 28th, 2010 at 4:10 PM
Vote for anyone but Larsen or Koster and you solve this one.
July 28th, 2010 at 4:14 PM
This sparring strikes me as much ado abut nothing since neither politician likely knew at the time the campaign contributions came from “tainted” sources.
However, I do feel that Larsen should vehemently denounce Koster’s latest, typical right wing filthy tactic: new signs attached to existing campaign signs that say (I’m NOT making this up!) Larsens’s “legacy” is a $13trillion deficit. To try to blame the national debt on one single congressman must be the work of a committee - no single individual could be that stupid!
Possibly Larsen considers it so wacko it doesn’t deserve the dignity of a response, but I think he should label it for what it is: an asinine insult to the intelligence of the voters.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:01 PM
This campaign is going to be an old fashion mud slinging one to the end.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:50 AM
[...] as the campaigns take jabs at each over over campaign donations and polling data. SAM TAYLOR with The Bellingham Herald — [...]
July 29th, 2010 at 7:27 AM
Those who have been voting (from either party) for the spending that has create our 13,300,000,000,000 debt (and still growing at the speed of light) are responsible for that legacy, who else would be?
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 29th, 2010 at 7:41 AM
BhamBill: again, those signs do not say Larsen is solely to blame. But he is a Congressman who voted for trillions of dollars in new, unpaid-for, spending. Of course he is to blame for it! And Larsen will never even MENTION those signs, because in doing so, he will just remind people that he is to blame for it.
AFY has it precisely right.
As to the trading of barbs, eh, it’s a tough campaign, it’s how it goes. Think on this though: there’s been three polls (two by Wenzel [not including the first one he redid after he realized his mistake], and one independent) that show Koster up by a significant margin. On top of that, Koster has brought in more individual contributions since he entered the race than Larsen.
Clearly, all evidence so far points to Koster being ahead. But he was ahead of Larsen in 2000, too, in the primary, and he ended up losing to Larsen in the general.
It’s gonna be a dogfight. I just hope the campaigns focus primarily on the issues over the next few months.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:50 AM
Oh, I should reiterate about money: Larsen has about $600K in PAC money, and Koster has $9.5K. Plus, Larsen — because he had a $160K head start — still has about $80K or so more in individual contributions. There’s no doubt that — mostly because of the PAC money that naturally flows to incumbents — Larsen will have a lot more money than Koster. But there’s also no doubt that money isn’t all that matters.
Larsen’s main job is to try to attack Koster either on the main issues — which will be extremely tough, since the voters are angry primarily at how Larsen and the Democrats have handled those very issues — or attack him on things that are not the issues.
Frankly, I wonder if the Koster campaign didn’t make a mistake going after the Rangel funding, just because it opens Koster up to similar questions. The big difference — which Koster’s campaign did not note, that Sam reported, anyway — is that Koster didn’t serve 10 years with Cunningham, like Larsen did with Rangel. He had virtually no connection to Cunningham that I know of. But it’s still something they shouldn’t have to defend.
It’s not as bad as when Larsen foolishly claimed the Palin endorsement would bring “out of state” money from “oil companies” to Koster, even though the majority of Larsen’s money is from out of state, and he’s the only candidate who has contributions from oil companies (including BP!), while almost all of Koster’s money is from in-state. That was a really dumb own-goal by Larsen. This Cunningham thing is not nearly as bad (and most voters probably don’t even know who Cunningham is), but I think Koster would be better served by sticking to the issues as much as possible, perhaps by mentioning the money but instead of making it the point, asking how close Larsen is in his votes to Rangel and Pelosi and so on.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:55 AM
pudge my man, focusing on the issue’s is a huge loser for Rick so methinks he has no choice being what he has to work with but character assassination. One thing for sure, as you have already witnessed herein, there will be plenty who will be happy to help carry that water for him.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 29th, 2010 at 8:15 AM
Those signs are classic right wing spin/distortion/BS, and Koster’s use of them at this stage of the game smacks of desperation. My guess is that Larsen will not dignify them with a comment.
Larsen has disappointed me several times - especially his pro-war vote this week - and I would be happy to replace him with Kalb. But an extreme right wing Republican? No way!
July 29th, 2010 at 8:24 AM
You can’t blame Larsen.
Current budget deficits are, to a great extent, the result of reduced revenues during the economic contraction, and federal actions needed to minimize damage from the Great Recession, which was largely caused by Republican mismanagement and policies deregulating the financial sector of the economy.
Moreover, Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, two unprovoked wars of aggression, and the largest expansion of entitlements in recent history doubled our national debt, when the Republicans were in control of our the legislative and executive branches.
Furthermore, if you examine the history of the federal debt, since Ford was president, it is clear that Republican administrations have presided over the largest increases, whereas both the Carter and Clinton administrations actually reduced the debt.
Admittedly, there’s plenty of blame for our national debt to go around, but trying to pin that blame on Democrats is laughable, and trying to pin that blame solely on Larsen is ludicrous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
July 29th, 2010 at 8:31 AM
When someone uses words like right wing, spin, distortion, bs, smacks of desperation, extreme; to support his position without anything to back it up, would that person arguments be based on facts or just his spin itself?
Fact, debt to be handed off to the next generation (legacy) is approaching, $13,300,000,000,000 & growing quickly, Rick is one of the people who has been voting for the spending that has created this debt, conclusions, Rick is as responsible as anyone else who have been supporting allowing the debt to get to where it be.
Either we keep doing what we are doing or get some new people in, which will change directions.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 29th, 2010 at 8:35 AM
Poor Todd, can’t admit how spending has gone up, blames it all on republicans even though spending is controlled by the house, and when you look at who has been controlling the house, both parties have plenty of guilt to share. And Rick is a member of the house, methinks.
To play on a Clinton phrase, It is all about spending stupid!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 29th, 2010 at 8:38 AM
BhamBill:
If you believe that, then demonstrate it. How are I and AFY wrong, that Larsen is to blame for the problem he helped create, by voting for trillions in new spending? The only evidence you gave that we are wrong, or the signs are wrong, is to falsely claim that the sign said Larsen is SOLELY responsible. It obviously doesn’t say or imply that. Do you have any other reasons?
Shrug. Koster’s been a legislator at the state and county level for 16 years and has the support of the entire Republican Party, from the Tea Party activists to the Mainstream Republicans (the head of the Mainstream Republicans actually encouraged Koster to run), and everyone in between, and including many Blue Dog Democrats and independents. These are people who know him well, have known him for the better part of his 16 years of service.
You can call him “extreme right wing,” but the people who know him best say you’re wrong.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:38 AM
Since I had never heard of Koster before this race, I googled him and quickly decided that his lack of judgement is appalling.
He actually wanted to carve up Snohomish County and create a new “Freedom County” with his home town of Arlington as the seat of power!
As for the kind of people he chooses as working partners, he has a long association with Larry Stickney, his current campaign manager, the noted homophobe who was the driving force behind the infamous anti-civil rights Ref 71.
I don’t think our district would be well served by a demonstrated radical right winger.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:21 AM
BhamBill:
I suggest that “quickly” making a judgment about someone else’s judgment shows a lack of judgment.
Yes. And? Civil districts — counties, municipalities, and so on — are made and remade often. What is so objectionable about that? Please detail what the problem is with this.
My local Fire/EMS recently joined forces with another to create a brand new North County Fire/EMS. Is that “extreme” too?
Larry’s a great guy. A really good friend of mine. I disagree with him on some issues, of course, as I disagree with everyone on some issues. For example, I disagree with him on the public disclosure case he took to the U.S. Supreme Court (at least, the one issue before the Court last session; I, like the Court, might be more willing to consider an as-applied challenge).
As I noted in a previous comment thread, I think marriage should be outside of the purview of goverment entirely, and that all couples should be treated equally by government (no matter what the nature of the couple’s relationship: straight, gay, non-romantic friends or siblings, whatever). As such, I did vote against R-71, because the clear motivation of the law is a stepping stone to gay marriage, which is a step backward in civil rights, from my libertarian perspective of wanting to get marriage away from government entirely.
It was a tough call for me, because I do believe in the government equality of gay unions, but I oppose what they are using that law to try to get: government picking and choosing what “marriage” means depending on how many people want it to mean something. If this is truly about liberty, as most pro-gay-marriage proponents believe, then it should be opened up to everyone, and I won’t participate in their selfish, exclusionary, mission.
But obviously, my motivation for voting differed from Larry’s, even though we voted the same way. Since I disagree with Larry on “gay marriage,” should I oppose John? Or call Larry an inaccurate and nasty name, like you did? That’s nonsense. But if you feel you must, PLEASE keep repeating this line as often as you can, because I can only imagine that most independent voters — who will decide this election — will be offended that in time of great economic problem you’re trying to go after someone because of gay marriage.
You demonstrated no such thing. You cited Koster’s support of Freedom County, without any obvious reason why this is “extreme.” You cited Larry Stickney, someone who isn’t Koster, for being motivated by a belief that is clearly not “extreme,” as it is still held by a majority of Washingtonians: that gay marriage should remain prohibited.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Todd2:
To a MUCH GREATER extent, they are the result of increased spending, as I pointed out to Larry Kalb. Summary: our spending right now — which is at $3.7 trillion — is double what it was when Bush took over from Clinton (FY2001), and one trillion more than it was just three years ago.
Even if we had normal growth in revenues, say at 3 percent per year, we’d still have about a one TRILLION dollar deficit. Even before the recession started, back in FY2008 (which began in October 2007), the Democrats, in their first budget controlling both houses of Congress, increased spending by 9.3%! Again, even if we had normal growth that year, our deficit would have increased from $160B under the GOP to $338B under the Democrats, in one year.
For the EXACT same nominal cost as the stimulus, we could have given everyone a federal tax holiday and WOULD have had much lower unemployment, much higher GDP, and much higher revenue to the federal government (meaning lower deficit and debt) as a result. The actions taken were not “needed” at all.
Oh, good, Todd. Everyone says this, but no one has ever detailed it that I can find. Please tell me, since I cannot figure it out, precisely what Republican policies caused the recession. Thanks in advance.
That never happened. Bush passed tax cuts for EVERYONE, not just for the wealthy.
In fact, there were not two such wars. Iraq is arguable, but it’s pretty clear that Iraq’s refusal to submit to the requirements of UNMOVIC constituted a violation of UN Security Council resolutions, and a violation of the cease-fire of 1991 (UN Sec Res 687), to which the U.S. was a party. This violation by Iraq was itself a provocation, legally speaking.
But there is no arguing whatsoever that Afghanistan was neither unprovoked, nor a war of aggression. We were attacked. Remember 9/11?
You mean until the Democrats took over, of course, since the last year-and-a-half have seen a much greater expansion, with the health insurance bill alone. That said, I do agree the GOP expanded government way too to much, and yet, the GOP got the deficit down to $160B before the Democrats ballooned spending even more … even before Obama took office.
That’s not true. The debt increased under every President. Debt never went down a single year under Clinton or Carter. Start at page 133 of the WH OMB document and see for yourself. Gross Federal Debt has not gone down in a single year since 1969.
Pointing out an increase of $4 trillion under four years of Democratic control of Congress, and two of a Democratic President, is not ludicrous. Remember when the Democrats attacked Bush for the then-massive expansion of our debt? It pales in comparison to what the Democrats have done.
Speaking of attacks on Bush, I remember in 2004 when the Democrats said Bush would be the first President to have a net job loss in a four-year term since Hoover. It didn’t happen though: Bush had a small net gain.
But Obama surely will become the first President to have a net job loss since Hoover. You could say “that’s not fair! Obama inherited this!” But Bush inherited his recession, too, and the Democrats didn’t care about fairness back then.
Yep! Good thing no one ever did that, then, huh?
July 29th, 2010 at 9:37 AM
“Civil districts — counties, municipalities, and so on — are made and remade often.” - Pudge
Can someone tell me the last time a WA state county was remade? I don’t know my state history well enough to know, but I’m guessing it doesn’t happen “often.”
July 29th, 2010 at 9:47 AM
The next Washington State Redistricting Commission meeting is in 2011.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 29th, 2010 at 9:51 AM
mamosa:
I didn’t single out counties: I was talking about civil districts. Even if it hadn’t happened in 50 years in WA, the task would be to show why proposing it now would be “extreme.” The point is that there’s nothing inherently extreme about it: it’s just moving around borders. So the question is: what specifically about THAT proposal was extreme? The name? The fact that one of the largest cities in the new county would be the county seat? Or is it “extreme” just because some people oppose Koster?
July 29th, 2010 at 10:09 AM
pudge’s selective reading of history is really quite amazing and amply demonstrates the power of right-wing propaganda to inculcate alternative versions of reality that have very little correspondence with the empirical facts, reason, or truth.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:14 AM
pudge,
The hijackers who attacked us on 9/11 were all Saudi nationals, and the Pastun tribal people we’ve been slaughtering in Afghanistan and Pakistan had very little to nothing to do with it.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Some people like to use the word extreme, just like they like to use the words right wing, nitpicing, master baiter, et al.
It’s their nature and how they communicate, don’t ya know.
Ok by me but I’s sure do like the whacky right better than right wing as I’s do the loonie left better than left wing, It’s a lot more fun way to communicate, and if we are going to waste our time debating about things few of us ever are going to agree about, why not have a little fun at it at least.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 29th, 2010 at 10:32 AM
Todd2:
Such as? As usual, you do not actually respond to me with any substance.
They were based in Afghanistan and received material support from the Taliban. The Taliban, through providing for those Saudi nationals, were culpable. That said, if the Talbian had allowed us to go into their country to get the terrorists who attacked us, they would not have been attacked themselves. They had a choice to make: help us get the terrorists, or protect them. They protected the terrorists. Well, tried to. Didn’t work out so well.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Okay, we get. You guys are bored. Shoo! Shoo! Go outside and play in the sunshine for a while.
July 29th, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Propaganda is a mixture of lies and truth to promote, in this case, and Anti American Republican Ideology which is promotes “Transnational Corporations”. NOT the American worker. Cut Taxes? How about making sure those tax dollars are NOT sent to other countries to build their economies and flush our economy down the toilet. I bet you are all happy about how our tax dollars are used to prop up puppet governments and given to those who would buy weapons that end up killing AMERICANS. Wow! End this now! Bring the troops home to protect AMERICA not some Arab regime or fake allies who will say anything to get on the real dole and bleed more from our economy to promote their anti-American Agenda??
Many of today’s Anti- America corporations are much more interested in bigger markets, like China (communists)1.3 billion people, then America. Corporations who have moved jobs to third world countries for the cheapest labor costs and the highest profit margins. Moved their headquarters to avoid paying their share to countries for the privilege to operate in those markets. Temporarily it might be good for them but in the long run just an act of treason against the American economy and the people of the US.
Accessories to this treason are “so called” Americans who promote these anti-American pro-Communist Practices.
If you want your country back Tea Partiers take it back from the CORPORATIONS who have bought off your government and these so called elected officials. I would join you then!
The real patriots are the American workers who actually work& vote in the best interests of America.
The private sector who outsources jobs and searches for bigger markets to add to their bottom line have sold America down the drain. So may jobs have been moved out of this country and these corporations are still allowed access to the American Markets after these criminal acts of TREASON.
Those who keep promoting the corporate LIES will never stop. Many are paid to propagandize America while some are just too stupid to stop speaking against their own country and best interests. When you lose your JOBS, HOMES, RIGHTS and figure it out it will be too late and you will have to start from scratch scraping out a living,begging for a 2 dollar an hour job, far worse than now. The odds will be 10 fold against you then in the past.
Not to worry though all the deniers of catastrophic climate change. The proponents of deregulation and oversight of ecological genocide will have sealed the fates of all of our children and grand children.
Keep listen to the big Lie Machine, arguing relentlessly against truth and spewing outright lies for that 1% who really own the world at our expense.
Light’em if you got em!. Your Toast! Unless you get your head out of the sand and start standing up for AMERICA and Not these profiteering corporations and bought off sellouts in government!
July 29th, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Mudhats can be a fun bunch sometimes, when they forget to be nasty.
This may be a surprise to many of you, but Mudhats sometimes read the newspaper. Of course they don’t want to be seen doing this, so they go and hide in one of the caves in the Mad Mountains. They like to read the Funnies first.
Mudhats get into fights almost daily. Especially if they’ve got nothing better to do.
They don’t even have to have a reason to fight.
Sometimes Mudhats just hang out, telling each other the most outlandish stories and tales anybody could come up with.
Sometimes Mudhats have meetings to decide what to do next.
Mudhats have a mud delivery service - we have yet to figure out who would buy mud - or anything else- from them. In any case, Mudhats like to drive around in their big, bad truck.
It has a special license plate which reads: 2BAD4U. If you see this truck coming, you better be careful. Mudhats are reckless drivers.
http://www.trollforest.com/mudhats.htm
July 29th, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Beartrap,
Thank you for your excellent post.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:10 PM
AFY Says:
“Those who have been voting (from either party) for the spending that has create our 13,300,000,000,000 debt (and still growing at the speed of light) are responsible for that legacy, who else would be?”
Too often, we lose sight of the fact that deficits result from both spending too much and taking in too little.
Let us also fault those who voted for totally unnecessary Bush tax cuts for upper income persons. The only thing that was trickled down upon was “We The People”.
At a time when we were busily spending our children’s futures to borrow from the Chinese to fund two unnecessary wars, tax cuts were irresponsible.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Bob Burr:
But that is not a fact. In fact, it’s incorrect: deficits ONLY come from spending, period. This is obvious, even by your own words: the only way “taking in too little” can have any meaning is by comparing it to what we are spending. Obviously, if spending is zero, revenue of zero cannot create a deficit.
It’s all, always, about spending … especially when our $3.7 trillion dollar budget is one trillion higher than it was just a few years ago. The growth in spending has been obscene.
That too is incorrect: in fact, EVERYONE who pays federal income tax got a tax cut. It wasn’t “for upper income persons,” it was for everyone. It “trickled down” in that everyone got to keep more of their own money.
In fact, the top 10 percent and top 1 percent paid MORE of the federal tax burden under Bush than under Clinton, and now Obama wants to make it even higher. We are fast approaching a society where the many live off the work of a few, which is — too — obscene. The many vote for their pet programs, demand from government what they want for themselves, and then blame the most successful workers for not wanting to pay for it themselves. It’s quite amazing, and while I am no fan of Ayn Rand and her objectivism, something like her Atlas Shrugged might be approaching us.
Also, that you call it “unnecessary” seems to reveal that you think government should take what is ours when it can, and only NOT take it when it has to not take it. I confess to not understanding this. It’s completely backward: government should only take what is ours when it is necessary to do so. It is ours, after all. Right to life, liberty, property.
Yes, again, you appear to agree with me that SPENDING is the problem, not revenue. The tax cuts were “irresponsible” in your view only because we were spending so much. The answer, of course, is therefore that we shouldn’t have spent so much.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Beartrap: you didn’t actually mention any lies. If you did, perhaps I’d understand your post better. Could you quote some lies from some people, and then demonstrate how they are actually lies, or even false?
For example: you write, “Temporarily it might be good for them but in the long run just an act of treason against the American economy and the people of the US.” So if I wanted to show that this was false, I’d point out that treason in the United States “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” and that we are at peace with China and they are not our enemies, and certainly engaging in business with them is neither giving aid and comfort to enemies of the U.S., nor is it engaging in war against the U.S.
So could you similarly identify the “lies” you are referring to in your comment? Thanks in advance!
(Oh, and on an unrelated matter, your claim that “The real patriots are the American workers who actually work& vote in the best interests of America” is entirely sickening and, itself, entirely anti-American. Have a nice day!)
July 29th, 2010 at 3:55 PM
[...] UPDATE: Sam Taylor has an update on the race at the Bellingham Herald’s Politics Blog. [...]
July 30th, 2010 at 9:05 AM
When making appropriations for the federal budget, Congress is always responding to the executive’s budget proposal.
“The Budget of the United States Government is the President’s proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.
“After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills. . . . Special appropriations have been used to fund most of the costs of war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan so far.”
“Tax revenues have averaged approximately 18.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) over the past 40 years, generally ranging plus or minus 2% from that level. . . . Tax revenues are significantly affected by the economy. Recessions typically reduce government tax collections as economic activity slows. For example, during FY2009, the U.S. government collected about $400 billion less than FY2008. Individual income taxes declined 20%, while corporate taxes declined 50%. At 15% of GDP, the 2009 collections were the lowest level of the past 50 years. . . . From FY 2003-2007, the national debt increased approximately $550 billion per year on average. For the first time in FY 2008, the U.S. added $1 trillion to the national debt [largely because of the Great Recession].”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Bush’s tax cuts of 2003 disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans. Married couples filing joint incomes of less than about $50,000 did not receive a reduction in their tax rates, whereas the largest rate reductions were enjoyed by those earning more than $300,000 a year.
Back in 2007, the New York Times reported that “Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study. . . . Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?ei=5088&en=e1dc830d58c7eacb&ex=1325912400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1168290792-GR0HodSCCzDHPWdgiU8nlg
“The tax cuts have failed to spur growth, while increasing the budget deficit, shifting the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes and further increasing already high levels of inequality. . . . The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the tax cuts would increase budget deficits by $60 billion in 2003 and by $340 billion by 2008.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
Conservatives have tried to paint democrats as “tax and spend” liberals, yet objective students of economic history will undoubtedly conclude that Presidents Carter and Clinton were far more fiscally responsible that any of their republican counterparts, since Nixon left office.
July 30th, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Todd2:
First, that is purely by convention. There’s no requirement to do so. The Constitution is entirely clear on this: in fact, the President’s budget has no legal standing at all, but only bills introduced to the legislature by legislators have standing. Appropriations bills, as the Constiution says, originate in the House (not the White House). As such, they are still responsible for it.
Second, I’ve always said Bush spends too much. But make no mistake, the Democrats are responsible for it: they proposed it in the House, they changed it, they voted on it, they passed it.
This does not, in any way, respond to the point I made, which is that deficits only ever exist when we overspend. Period. It does not matter how much revenue drops, there would be no deficit if we did not overspend. This is a truism. “To overspend” means to spend more than you have. That is what a deficit is.
Now, more specifically, it is true that in 2009 our revenues decreased significantly: as I already explicitly stated, they dropped $400 billion. But our spending increased $254 billion the year before, and $535 billion in 2009. Our spending increased at a much greater rate even than our revenues decreased. Our spending should have decreased, but instead, it went twice as far in the opposite direction.
You wanna talk GDP? Yep, 2009 was the lowest revenue, 14.8, as a percent of GDP since 14.4 in 1950. But spending, at 24.7, was higher than any year since FY 1946, due to WWII.
The differences are, of course, that a. we had no option but to spend a lot of money to win WWII (while we had many several options to fight the recession); b. we had a lot to show for our expenditure (actually winning WWII, as opposed to unverifiably “saving” jobs and “avoiding” a depression); c. we turned the deficit into a surplus in just two years following the war’s end, with spending dropping back to around 18 percent GDP (whereas our expenditures are now expected to remain at around 23 percent of GDP for several years).
There’s more, but you get the idea.
That is baseless. It’s incorrect. The “wealthiest Americans” shouldered more of the burden after Bush’s tax cuts, than before.
False. That’s just untrue. Decreased thresholds and increased standard deductions meant that everyone got a cut. A $50,000 couple filing jointly dropped from a 27% to a 15% tax rate because of the dramatic treshold changes, and even if (at lower incomes) they stayed in the 15% bracket they got an increased standard deduction, lowering their effective rate.
I wonder what kind of world you live in where a 15 percent rate is less “enjoyable” than a more-than-double 35 percent rate.
Yes, of course, because the people at the bottom end didn’t have as far to drop. Again: their rates dropped but the ended up paying a higher percentage of all taxes.
That is a matter of opinion, but let me just say there is FAR more evidence that Bush’s tax cuts significantly contributed to the economic turnaround we saw in 2004, than there is that the stimulus prevented us from going into a depression.
(Also, you misrepresented Wikipedia by misquoting it. It DID NOT assert what your misquote says it asserts: rather, it says “Critics state that the tax cuts have failed. …”)
NEVER HAPPENED. The tax burden shifted more TO THE WEALTHY. When Bush took office, the Top 1% paid 33.89 percent of all federal income tax; the Top 5%, 53.25; the Top 10%, 64.89; the Top 25%, 82.90; the Top 50%, 96.30.
Through 2006 (as far as this chart goes, and would’ve been the most recent numbers the NYT piece you cite would’ve had), it went to 39.89, 60.14, 70.79, 82.67, 97.01. The burden shifted away from the poor, and more to the wealthy, at every level: Top 1% through Top 50%.
Meanwhile, if you look at the top 11-25%, it went down from 18.01 percent in 2001 to 15.47 in 2006, and the top 26-50% went down from 13.13 to 10.75.
The tax burden under Bush unequivocally shifted to the rich, not to the middle and working classes.
Objective students will note that Carter was simply ineffective at promoting any change for the better, and that Clinton’s drastically increased spending was justified only because of an economic boom spurred on by technology that had nothing to do with anything he did.
July 31st, 2010 at 10:34 AM
This is a bunch of poppycock. The majority of federal outlays are considered absolutely necessary or they are mandated by law (defense and entitlements, such as Medicare and Social Security). Congress and the Executive cannot simply or suddenly adjust spending downward to match rapidly declining revenues, without causing untoward and undesiralbe consequences (as we are now experiencing at the state level). The budget process just doesn’t work that way.
Under Bush’s tax cuts, the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans (those in the highest tax bracket) was reduced from 38.6% to 35%, while everyone else got a smaller rate reduction. Plus, taxes on unearned income from capital gains and dividends were also reduced, and income from those sources disproportionately goes to the rich. Indeed, many Americans who are truly rich only receive income from capital gains and dividends, which are now taxed at the low rate of 15%. This has prompted some rich Americans to point out that they are now paying lower tax rates than their maids, secretaries, and gardeners.
Furthermore, most of the income gains since Reagan took office have gone to the top, whereas incomes for the rest of us have remained flat. The rich are getting richer, while incomes for the rest of us languish. It’s no wonder higher income earners shoulder most of the tax burden, compared to the poor. It’s supposed to work that way. We tax the rich, because they are increasingly the one’s rolling in our dough. The working and middle classes have been increasingly squeezed down into the working poor, so naturally, they should be responsible for less of the overall tax burden. And, as far as the working poor are concerned, there’s an old expression, “you can’t suck blood out of a turnip.”
As the Pulitzer Prize winning tax reporter for the New York Times, David Cay Johnston wrote in his 2003 book, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super-Rich — And Cheat Everybody Else,
In addition to disproportionately benefiting the rich, the Bush tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible. The CBO reports that, in 2000 when Bush took office, federal revenues exceeded outlays, so we had a surplus of $86 billion. But this situation rapidly deteriorated, once Republicans controlled the budget process. Here are the numbers:
Year…..Revenues…Outlays…..On Budget Deficit (-) or Surplus
2000……2025.2……1789.0………86.4
2001……1991.1……1862.9……..-32.4
2002……1853.1……2010.9……-317.4
2003……1782.3……2159.9……-538.4
2004……1880.1……2292.9……-568.0
2005……2153.6……2472.0……-493.6
2006……2406.9……2655.1……-434.5
2007……2568.0……2728.7……-342.2
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Historicaltables2010Jan_forweb.XLS
It is true that on-budget deficits dramatically increased in 2008 and 2009, but this was largely due to declining revenues and unprecedented appropriations to prevent a meltdown of the global financial system and to mitigate the negative impacts of the Great Recession.
We should repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich and restore the higher tax rates for the super rich, including taxes on capital gains, stock dividends, and inheritances. We also need to close loopholes, exemptions, and off-shore tax shelters that disproportionately benefit the rich.
July 31st, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Here’s some additional data from the Congressional Budget Office that is of interest:
In 1979, the average household income for the lowest quintile was $15,700. In 2005, it was still $15,700. Average household income for the second quintile only increased from $34,000 in 1979 to $37,400 in 2005. Average household income for the middle quintile tells a similar story and only increased from $51,000 to $58,500.
However, income gains the past 25 years are disproportionately concentrated at the top, so that the higher up the income ladder you look, the more spectacular the gains. For example, the average income for the top 0.01% of households was $7.3 million in 1979, but it had risen by 2005 to more than $35 million. Moreover, the Effective Federal Tax Rate for this elite 0.01% dropped dramatically from 42.9% in 1979 to 31.5% in 2005.
When the upper class enjoys an increased share of the total income, they should pay and increased share of the taxes. The CBO notes that “high-income households have a disproportionate share of comprehensive income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes. . . . People at the top 0.01 percent of the income scale received 4.2 percent of total income and paid 6.5 percent of total federal taxes in 2005.”
Similarly, “The half-percent of the population with the highest income received 14.7 percent of total household income before taxes and paid 22.6 percent of total federal taxes in 2005.” In my opinion, such income inequalities are extremely excessive, and the super rich should be paying higher taxes.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884/12-23-EffectiveTaxRates_Letter.pdf
July 31st, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Todd2:
LOL. Nice. This is just question-begging. I point out the truth that Congress can always reduce spending, and you say “nuh uh, it’s mandatory.” The obvious next question is, “says who?” And the answer is, of course, “Congress.”
A nice gig if you can get it: you get to spend money because you told yourself you have to!
How would you know? Again, spending has MASSIVELY INCREASED. It’s not gone downward at all.
Same thing: we have not cut ANY spending at the state level. At all. It’s gone up, up, and further up. The Big Lie from Gregoire and the Dems is that the recession required tax increases, but it was really due to spending increases.
If you are irresponsible, right, it doesn’t work that way. That is the best argument I can think of for why the Democrats, including Larsen, need to be tossed out on their ear: they don’t understand that when revenues drop, you need to tighten your belt.
And yet the highest tax bracket still paid more of the overall tax burden! So what are you complaining about? My word. You just want to PUNISH rich people, don’t you? It’s not good enough that they pay much more than everyone else, and that their share of the overall burden increases: you just want them to be HURT? Or do you want them to just pay for EVERYTHING?
And, again, they still paid an increased share of the tax burden.
And, again, they still paid an increased share of the tax burden.
Yes, Warren Buffet said that, though there is question about whether or not that’s true. But even if it is true: rich people like him still paid an increased share of the tax burden.
While the rich did get richer, so did everyone else. This “flat income” thing just isn’t true.
You’re not getting it: they are not just paying most of it, they are paying a continally increased share of it.
That can only be true if you’re a socialist. I am not a socialist. Let’s try to stick to American principles of ownership of private property, and not Soviet and Chinese principles of collective ownership.
Yeah, no, that’s just false. You can’t back it up (and, of course, you didn’t even try).
That is literally stupid. It has no basis in reality. Again: those people already pay MUCH more in taxes, MUCH more of the overall tax burden, and an ever-increasing share of the overall tax burden.
This class warfare is tired and not based in facts of any kind.
No, they were not. The INCREASED SPENDING was fiscally irresponsible. The tax cuts were just fine.
That’s actually not true. FY2001 was signed by Clinton and took effect in October 2000 — a full quarter before Bush took office — and that budget ended up with a deficit of $32 billion. And this was, obviously, in large part because of the recession that Bush inherited, not to mention the attack of 9/11.
All that said, I usually go by the total numbers, not merely the “on-budget” numbers, which are not $86b and -$32b, but $236b and $128b.
First, as I already proved, the Republicans already DID control the budget process. They controlled the House from 1995 through 2006. But the Democrats controlled the Senate for most of 2001 and all of 2002.
So actually, your analysis is quite off: again, 2001 was passed under Clinton, and presided over mostly by a Democratic-controlled Senate; and 2002 and 2003 were both passed under a Democratic-controlled Senate. There was not a fully Republican Congress and President passing a budget until FY 2004.
Now, again, I usually go by total numbers, but regardless, note that under Bush and a fully Republican Congress, the situation stabilized, then reversed course. When the Democrats passed their first budget under a fully Democratic Congress, in 2008, the deficit took another big jump.
All that said: I have long been a critic of the high spending that took place under Bush. I don’t excuse it, and I don’t like it. But let’s analyze it according to what actually happened: both parties were involved with the worst of the budgets in the early 2000s, and all of the budgets in the 2000s that saw either relative stability from the previous year, or a drop, were the only ones controlled entirely by the Republicans.
I have to say that it strikes me as extremely dishonest to excuse the Democratic Congress because of the bad economy, but then you blame Bush and the Republicans for a deficit that was passed by Clinton, presided over by a Democratic Senate, and in the beginning of a recession that Bush inherited.
You have not given us any reason why we should increase taxes no the rich. You’ve given us platitudes about how the rich aren’t paying enough, but the evidence shows differently.
In fact, before the latest recession hit, total revenue as a percentage of GDP was 18.5%, which is higher than average, historically. Higher than most years of every decade. Also, individual income taxes were an 8.4% share of GDP, which is about average, and corporate income tax was 2.7% of GDP, which is higher than average. And — again — the wealthy’s share of that total income tax was INCREASED throughout the 2000s.
So income taxes are about the same as they’ve always been, the rich are paying more and more of the total, and yet you assert — without evidence — that they are not paying enough.
The only conclusion is that you believe government is historically not getting nearly enough revenue and you want to selfishly soak the rich for what YOU want.
July 31st, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Thanks for the scholarly effort Todd. You must have been bored to try to reason with this brand of intellect…
July 31st, 2010 at 1:14 PM
Writing for the New York Times, David Leonhardt provides a solid analysis of our current budget woes, and as I said before, there’s plenty of blame to go around:
For anyone who wants to understand better how we got into our current budget mess, this makes for some fine reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1
July 31st, 2010 at 2:04 PM
It’s no wonder that, despite lower tax rates, the rich “paid an increased share of the tax burden,” as pudge repeatedly notes. However, this isn’t as paradoxical as it might seem. It’s at least partly explained by increasing economic inequality.
As reported by Wikipedia, in 2005, “economist Timothy Smeeding summed up the current trend of rising inequality on the pages of the Social Science Quarterly:
And, when discussing personal income (as opposed to household income), Wikipedia correctly notes that,
Citing a member of the federal reserve, Wikipedia also notes that,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
And, just like incomes, wealth is also disproportionately concentrated at the “very tip of the top.” According to Wikipedia,
Most of our money is at the top, where we also find the high incomes. So, it makes sense that those at the top should be paying a large share of the tax burden.
July 31st, 2010 at 2:06 PM
Here’s the last link I inadvertently omitted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
July 31st, 2010 at 9:33 PM
“..ideas define the way we perceive reality.” IK
If one embraces conservative ideas, one is going to have a conservative reality. To assert that one knows all, the truth, the correctness of things or the meaning of history studied from a distance of years, as opposed to someone who lived through it as an adult, is to assert a reality that is not necessarily even close–and in this case we can see just how far afield from reality some conservatives have strayed in their quest to channel life’s experiences to fit simplistic preconceived notions and views that could be, easily as not, just false impressions with no real basis in anything but dogma and spin..
July 31st, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Todd2:
Obviously false: the increased spending in Obama’s first year was $535,127 billion, which is not only greater than the federal deficit that came before Obama, but greater than EVERY federal deficit that came before Obama.
Even if you look only at the budget instead of total spending, his spending increase was $492,862 billion, whereas the total budget deficit in the previous year was $641,850 billion. Saying that half-a-trillion of Obama’s increased spending is merely a “sliver” of a $3 trillion budget and $1.5 trillion deficit is ridiculous to the extreme.
And for the record, because I just want to be really clear here: the Democratic budget for FY 2009 saw us spending more than twice as much as we took in. I don’t care how bad the economy is or how much you believe that the way out is to spend money: that’s INSANITY. Obama and the Dems are lucky they haven’t been tarred and feathered yet.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that’s the case: so what? So the rich are paying more because they have that much more than everyone else. The operative point is that they are paying more, and the most important part is that we’re getting the same amount (if not more) of total individual income revenue as a percentage of GDP.
So we’re left with you demonstrating no need to raise their taxes, because we are already taxing them more, and we are getting historically at-or-above revenues in return.
Like I said in my last comment: The only conclusion is that you believe government is historically not getting nearly enough revenue and you want to selfishly soak the rich for what YOU want.
July 31st, 2010 at 11:22 PM
Shaun and Todd2,
Does this remind you of anyone?
Don’t argue with an Ipex!
http://presurfer.blogspot.com/2010/07/dont-argue-with-ibex.html
July 31st, 2010 at 11:33 PM
Ibex.
August 1st, 2010 at 7:36 AM
Camille: LOL!!! Thanks for the chuckle! Yes, that guy trying to argue with the ibex reminds me of shaun and todd2 trying to engage in intelligent discussion with certain posters in this thread. I admit I also gave it a try, then remembered the old adage, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. Your effort is doomed to failure and it greatly annoys the pig.”
August 1st, 2010 at 9:40 AM
As Babe found out, though a noble if ill mannered beast, the true purpose of a pig is not to sing; it’s to render it’s fat little body up for bacon and ham.
Here we have a ham trying to fry everyone’s bacon by singing off key and to lyrics no one hears but this porcine obfuscator……rhetorically speaking, of course.
He’s an energetic young man though, with some future potential, speaking ‘authoritatively” about periods in history many of us lived through while he was still getting his diapers changed; but now he has suddenly found the grail no one else can see…all hail….
.
August 1st, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Why would you try to put words in my mouth??? For the record, this is what I said:
“We should repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich and restore the higher tax rates for the super rich, including taxes on capital gains, stock dividends, and inheritances. We also need to close loopholes, exemptions, and off-shore tax shelters that disproportionately benefit the rich.”
August 1st, 2010 at 3:35 PM
Here’s a little trip down memory lane that demonstrates the efficacy of conservative propaganda:
Palin Criticizes Obama’s ‘Terrorist’ Connection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi3oP74kMjA
Ohio voters say Obama is a terrorist:
Misconceptions of Obama fuel Republican campaign - 13 Oct 08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0
August 1st, 2010 at 4:22 PM
As I’ve noted, you can’t necessarily blame Obama for the increased spending in 2009. According to wikipedia,
This substantiates what I said in my first post on this thread, “Current budget deficits are, to a great extent, the result of reduced revenues during the economic contraction, and federal actions needed to minimize damage from the Great Recession.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#2008_vs._2009
August 1st, 2010 at 5:34 PM
During a time of great economic and cultural strife, two wars, millions out of work, there are still going to be those miscreants who use the fear and the chaos to further promote their absurd ideologies that got us into this mess….
But they sure hate hearing that, aside from monumental legislative victories, (Not perfect, thanks to the obstructors, but giant first steps,) in the face of hate and the political tomfoolery of obstructing him at any cost, he is not only succeeding in keeping us on the right track in most regards, his efforts are starting to show fruit, and succeed Reagan’s efforts to turn the last big recession around by a year or more….
Split all the hairs you want, but I’m hearing more sense from Obama than what is blowing out of conservative quarters and totally Foxing up the air…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/mano-a-mano-obamas-job-re_b_650660.html
August 1st, 2010 at 9:14 PM
Todd2:
I never did, Todd. In fact, I explicitly stated — you even quoted it — that I was drawing a CONCLUSION from what you said.
Yes, you want this, even though we have average, or above average, income tax revenue as related to GDP, and even though the rich and super-rich pay more of it than they did before the Bush tax cuts. Even though you have demonstrated no need to raise their taxes, you want to do it anyway.
Therefore, I conclude, based on the facts cited, that you believe the average income tax revenue as related to GDP is too low, and you want it to be higher.
Of course I can.
That is decreased revenue, not increased spending. I was talking explicitly about increased spending, as you also mentioned. Moving on:
All of which is part of Obama’s agenda.
So which increased spending can I not blame Obama for? Every part of the increased spending you cited is part of Obama’s agenda. All of it. Maybe you could say Iraq is just something he has to do because of Bush, but Afgahnistan he chose to escalate, and the rest is all part of what he wants to do.
Except it also substantiates what I said: that to a GREATER extent it is because of spending increases by the Democrats and Obama. You quoted it yourself: decrease in revenue of $320 billion, and increased spending of twice that.
(And, again, saying those actions were “needed” is just flatly false, as other actions were possible and undeniably would have had a much more favorable impact on our economy).
August 1st, 2010 at 9:39 PM
“WHhaaauGGhH! *PHHT!* WWWUuUuAaAGGgHhh!”
August 1st, 2010 at 9:47 PM
pudge,
TARP was a product of the Bush administration, undertaking in response to the subprime mortgage crisis to prevent a meltdown of the Euro-American financial system. President Bush signed TARP into law on October 3, 2008. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) “followed other economic recovery legislation passed in the final year of the Bush presidency including the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which created the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).”
Since you are opposed to “Obama’s agenda,” as you put it, should we presume you were against federal stimulus of the economy, the Obama tax cuts under ARRA, continued funding of TARP, and extensions of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
Are we also correct to presume that you are in favor of cutting Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and the broader Defense budget to avoid tax increases, while paying down the increases in federal debt we incurred under the Bush administration?
August 1st, 2010 at 10:58 PM
David Stockman, former OMB director for the Reagan Administration, has a very informative piece in yesterday’s New York Times, in which he says somes very unflattering things about Republicans, such as,
Stockman essentially says that our huge public debt is largely due to Republican mismanagement of the economy. For example, noting that the federal debt is fast approaching $18 trillion, he says,
He also says that it’s a “delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts,” which is just what Alan Greenspan said today on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Stockman also notes that we’ve shipped most of our best jobs overseas and that “during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income.” This has contributed to a “growing wealth gap,” which is the result of “bad economic policy.”
And, on CNN today, Fareed Zakaria said the easiest way to cut the deficit is to let the Bush tax cuts expire, because “Bush’s massive tax cuts are the single largest chunk of our structural budget deficit.”
Here are the links:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/08/01/gps.fareed.take.8.01.cnn?iref=allsearch
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:49 AM
Ah, the master of hindsight. Now we can conveniently rag on Obama for not getting us out of Afghanistan, but just last fall he was supported by the majority of both parties. And most Republicans still support the Afghanistan surge–it being one of the only things they are willing to credit him for.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/5643/gallup-majority-democrats-i-and-i-republicans-supporting-obama-afghanistan-plan
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:54 AM
I finally found someone who seems to be in perfect agreement with pudge:
Palin on the Bush Tax Cuts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIGUbiPNpxs
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:21 AM
There’s an excellent and timely video metaphor on You tube that reflects how the new Palin model of Republicans get their information and share with each other…..just Google, “Elephant eats” and the first you tube that comes up from the Guadalajara zoo will enlighten you…
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:36 AM
Bill’s double entendre comment has been removed for its sexual (and, thus, inappropriate) reference. Pudge’s comment was removed because it was in response to that, and Bill’s comment no longer exists. Pudge did nothing wrong, however, he was only responding.
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Dang! Missed it.
Wrong morning to sleep in, apparently.
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:31 AM
I looked at the Palin video but I’m definitely passing on the elephants.
Sarah in 2012!
August 2nd, 2010 at 1:31 PM
Todd2:
Yes, and Obama voted for it, and then pushed for another round when he took office. This is, obviously, therefore, part of the “Obama agenda,” which is the phrase you used that I was responding to (in your quote from David Leonhardt). I don’t say he is solely (or even necessarily primarily) to blame for all of the spending; I am merely saying it all is part of his agenda.
I never said I was. Certainly I am opposed to MOST of it, but simply saying that something is part of his agenda, and so therefore I should be opposed to it, is nonsense. Whether Obama is in favor of something literally has no bearing on whether I will be against it. It is an INDICATOR, certainly: since I disagree with him more often than not on public policy issues of the day, you would win more than you would lose by betting on my view as being the opposite of Obama’s. But what Obama thinks has no determinant effect on what I think.
Yes on all except for Iraq: Obama has been drawing down Iraq, which I am in favor of, though I simply don’t know enough to say whether he has drawn it down too slowly or too quickly. So his “extension” might have been a good move — I just don’t know — but I am in general in favor of his committment to remove our forces from Iraq, which appears to be imminent.
As to ARRA, the very tiny tax cuts in it didn’t help anyone, and only hurt revenue. I am in general against general tax credits, preferring rate cuts, and even moreso against tax credits applied in such tiny increments over the course of the year, since the whole point of the tax credit was supposedly to help stimulate spending, which it can’t do in those increments.
I’d have to look back at the various credits to see if there might be one that I favor, but I am mostly against them, yes.
Obviously, though, I am not against those things because Obama is for them, but because they violate my principles and my belief in how things should be done instead.
Over a long period of time — 50 years, say — I would like to eliminate all of those. But that’s unlikely to happen.
However, Obama did cut Medicare. That was in the bill. Medicare Advantage was cut. But no, I am not in favor of that: while I am in favor of cutting Medicare over time, I think Advantage was a better program than what it was replaced with in the bill.
Also, Obama is very likely to endorse cutting Social Security. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson co-chair Obama’s commision on cutting the debt, and both of them are bipartisanly in favor of cutting Social Security (and probably Medicare and Medicaid, too). We will likely see Obama endorse raising the retirement age and perhaps even cutting benefits, both of which are cuts. If Obama goes along with this, as is likely, I will be in agreement with him.
Probably. Obviously, there’s a lot of waste in Defense, but I’d need to make sure that the cut in the budget would target that waste.
We have a lot of Obama debt to get through before we get to the Bush debt, but yes, I favor paying down the deficit, then the debt, before significant tax decreases. I think the current tax levels are good ones and I do not favor increasing or decreasing them. (Although I’d really like to switch to a FairTax, or something similar.)
I already proved that’s false. Our income tax revenue (pre-recession) was historically at or above average as a percentage of GDP, and the rich are paying more of it than they did before the cuts. To say the cuts are unaffordable simply ignores the facts.
Not remotely, no. Mismangement of the budget, in part, yes: the Republicans colluded with the Democrats to overspend. But that is not “the economy.”
Except, of course, that far more debt has been created by spending increases than by tax cuts, as you’ve helped demonstrate.
That is an utterly false claim, Todd. First, of course most of our best jobs are still in America; and no, Stockman does not say that at all.
So what? We’ve all gained in our income. So what if some people at the top gained more than we did? How does that hurt you, me, or anyone else? I understand your jealousy, but how does it actually hurt you?
Yes, but Zakaria is always over-simplistic about domestic and economic issues. Obviously, letting those tax cuts expire will slow economic growth, as tax increases always do. Here’s the dirty little secret I’ve been hinting at a lot: income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is always fairly constant, except for brief periods (such as a recession). There’s literally no evidence we can just increase taxes and magically get all of that money into our public coffers. It NEVER works that way.
Yes, she was correct about most of what she said. As are many economists who are also in agreement with me.
August 2nd, 2010 at 3:48 PM
pudge,
I do not believe tax increases on higher incomes are always detrimental to the economy, especially given that the super-rich are enjoying high incomes, even while the real economy is in the ditch. And I certainly don’t believe tax cuts always pay for themselves, by stimulating the economy enough to produce higher revenues.
Evidence from countries using the Nordic Model seems clear concerning both of these points — there is no direct correlation between tax rates and economic performance or employment levels. Indeed, European nations with both high taxes and large social welfare budgets also generally enjoy robust economies, high employment, high standards of living, much lower levels of poverty, and much lower levels of economic inequality. On the other hand, tax cuts in the U.S., since Reagan, have almost always led to much, much larger deficits, which are harmful to our long-term prosperity. Republican tax cuts seem to have gone hand-in-hand with ballooning debt. I realize some conservatives have long wanted smaller government, but strangling the federal government with debt, seems an odd way to achieve such an objective.
As for U.S. deficits and debt, I don’t see any way we will be able to balance budgets and reduce long-term public debt without BOTH tax increases and budget cuts. I just hope we’ll be able to balance future budgets in a way that doesn’t further disadvantage the lower classes or exacerbate the already extreme economic inequalities hindering the nation. Cutting defense might be a good place to start.
Finally, you accuse me of being jealous, but I am neither jealous, nor envious of those who make more than me by fair and honest means. Instead, I am angry that the ruling elite co-opted conservative think tanks, policy planning organizations, media, and the Republican party, which they used to pull the wool over our eyes, rob the country blind, and give the lower, working, and middle classes the proverbial shaft. That’s what I feel: we’ve been screwed.
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:42 PM
Todd2:
They are. The question is how detrimental, and for how long (since at some point there’s some adjustment).
You’re not making sense here, Todd: if I make a billion dollars, I don’t just let it sit there, I do something with it. I set aside a certain amount for savings, I put some in bonds, I put some in stocks, I invest some in this business and that business, I buy things, and so on.
If you take an extra few million from me, then I will have to make choices about what NOT to do with my money, and chances are, it’s going to be the relatively risky investments in various businesses, especially when the economy is relatively bad; or, I’ll buy fewer things, which hurts the businesses I would have bought from.
This necessarily has a negative impact on the economy, and no matter how much money I have, the formula scales up the same way. Indeed, the more money I have, the more your tax hike will take from me, and the more money I won’t put into the economy.
Keynes might say it doesn’t matter, since the money will be spent by government, but that’s just not how it works. Money spent by the private sector ends up creating more wealth than money spent by the government.
I believe the very concept of the question “Do tax cuts pay for themselves?” assumes what is definitionally false: that cutting taxes is an expenditure, rather than a reduction in revenue. You might think this is mere semantics, but it’s not: not only does this sort of thinking lead government to erroneously think that our money is theirs to play with, but it also erroneously treats a reduction in revenue as equivalent to an expenditure, when they have very different effects.
For example, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s indisputably true that if — instead of a stimulus — we simply stopped collecting corporate and individual income tax for however long it took to match the cost of the stimulus bill, we would have had much more growth and much lower unemployment as a result. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is true.
(That’s not to say we should have done that, it’s just a thought exercise.)
First, that’s a flawed analysis. Every country is different, and you can’t really compare them like this. There’s too many factors that play into that you simply cannot account for.
Second, the argument is that TAX CUTS increase growth, not that there’s a magic tax rate that is best for growth. So reducing tax rates from 45% to 40% will increase growth, but increasing tax rates from 35% to 40% will reduce growth. Even if in both cases you started out with 4% growth in GDP, and both went to the same tax rate, the former would increase growth and the latter would reduce it, because people matter, and telling someone their taxes are going up is going to change their behavior for the worse, even if it ends up the same rate as the other situation where it’s been reduced, which will change their behavior for the better.
But in both cases, the effects are largely temporary, and things even out eventually.
And this is part of the problem: we really shouldn’t be trying to micromanage the economy based on how people will react. We should pick a (relatively low) number, stick with it, and live by it, instead of treating it like a political football. Like I said, I don’t want to change the rates up OR down.
First, no one has ever told me why “income inequality” is bad. If you are paid well, and I am a billionaire, why should you be angry with me?
Second, I recently saw an interview with a Swedish economist who talked in glowing terms about how great the Swedish system is … and then about how it could never work in the U.S. Our country is too big, too diverse, and — in part as a result, but also for other reasons — too inefficient. Again: you cannot compare countries like this, there’s too many factors.
Third, the U.S. has historically had better unemployment than many of the countries you mention (for example, France) and a more robust economy than almost every country in Europe.
Yes: when not matched by decreased spending. Of course. This is not a newsflash, but it obviously does not mean that tax cuts are bad, it means tax cuts without decrease spending are bad.
Not really. It makes perfect sense, in a world where government refuses to cut spending. Because deficits and debt have increased, it creates greater and greater social pressures to reduce spending. Maybe this time we’ll actually get a Congress that will do it.
That said, the Democrats have gone along with it. Obama has not only massively increased spending within this reality, but promised to not increase taxes on all non-wealthy Americans. Sure, he broke this promise within about one month of his inauguration, and has broken it a few times since, but still: he likes to appear as though he won’t raise taxes, even if it is to pay for the things he wants.
If you really want to talk about Europe, we should point out that they have higher tax rates across the board, not just for the wealthy. (Also, they mostly have lower corporate income tax rates, but that’s another discussion maybe.)
It’s easy, actually. It will just take awhile. That said, I would bet that most Americans would accept a tax increase IF they could be guaranteed that spending would be cut. But that’s precisely the problem, and precisely why cutting taxes makes sense even if spending isn’t cut: because NO ONE believes spending will be cut. We haven’t cut spending since 1965.
Here’s a funny tidbit: last year we were projected to cut spending for the first time in almost 50 years in 2010. Didn’t happen. Didn’t even come close: 2009 came out about half a trillion dollars higher than expected. This year, we’re projected to cut spending in 2012. You think we will? No one believes it.
We know we can cut taxes, but we’ve never even TRIED to cut spending, not in almost 50 years, so let’s not pretend that the problem is tax cuts.
Except, of course, no one has explained how “economic inequalities” has hindered anything. And apart from the “lower classes” being completely outside the constitutional purview of the federal government, they are doing just fine, and will continue to do so.
Again: they pay more taxes than before. How are they robbing or shafting anyone? You’re just making it up.
I can’t argue with your feelings, but I can point out the fact that you have no evidence to back up your feelings. You can’t say how they hurt you, or anyone else (except for pointing to specific crimes which I am, of course, completely in favor of prosecuting, and are thus beside the point).
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:13 PM
Colbert explains Bush tax cuts with beer:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/341481/july-28-2010/the-word—ownership-society
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:55 PM
Like companies in China, perhaps? We desperately need capital investments domestically. For many years, multinational corporations haven’t been very bullish on America, whereas they have been heavily investing overseas.
More wealth for whom? The past 30 years, the rich have gotten much, much richer, while most of the rest of us are treading water. I don’t think you realize the extent to which the super-rich have been using government to stack the deck in their favor.
I find the idea preposterous that we’d have growth, prosperity, and full employment, if only we’d simply leave the rich alone, cut all their taxes, and completley deregulate them. Indeed, this is probably one of the most successful propaganda coups of the past century. In fact, it’s right up there with the idea that unions are evil.
Of course we can. We do it all the time.
Economic growth is not necessarily the best measure of prosperity, and it certainly isn’t the best measure for sustainability.
People in Northern Europe generally do not complain about paying high taxes like we do. Indeed, compared to Americans, many in Europe are happy to pay high taxes, probably because their governments are far more responsive to the needs of their people.
For example, see this 60 Minutes story by Morley Safer:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4181996n
Or, watch the second third of Sicko.
There are many arguments against inequality, but I am concerned that the elite enjoy too great an influence over our political affairs, compared to other classes. For more about this, see Robert Alan Dahl’s discussion of the relation between economic inequality and political inequality in his book On Political Equality, 2006, Yale University Press. I am also concerned with social justice issues.
Also, Richard Wilkinson, professor emeritus at the University of Nottingham Medical School, has been studying economic and social inequality for over three decades now. Recently Kate Pickett, an epidemiologist at the York University, coauthored with Wilkinson an intriguing book entitled, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. These authors compared measures of trust, mental illness, life expectancy, infant mortality, educational achievement, teenage births, homicides, and incarceration rates across countries and found that the US performed the worst on all nine problems, because “the most consistent predictor of these problems is economic inequality.”
You can watch an interview with Wilkinson here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y0sBsZfzJk
I’ve heard several conservatives mention the Swedish economist or make this argument. Why do they always mention the Swedish economist? At any rate, we know that social welfare programs work in Canada, and if they can be made to work in such a socially hetergeneous country like Canada, they will work anywhere.
OMG! How you could say such a thing, unless you have refused to read what I’ve written or consider the material in the links I have provided?
You really have to ask for an example of how Americans have been shafted? Well, PBS Frontline provides an excellent example in their program Secret History of the Credit Card, which you can view online right here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:40 AM
Todd2:
Which was increasing significantly before the recession, and has slowed in the face of economic uncertainty. I fail to see your point.
Again: you have not in any way provided even a REASON why anyone should be upset that the rich are getting richer. None at all. And as I’ve already pointed out, in fact, up until the recession, wages were continuing to rise at a normal rate for everyone else. So what’s the problem?
I find the idea preposterous that you are implynig that anyone ever said that. Please, let’s be honest here.
First, I never mentioned anything about deregulation: you are completely making that up.
Second, I did not say to cut all the taxes for the rich alone, but for EVERYONE, and only for the time it takes to cost the same as the stimulus.
This, I did not say we should do that, I only pointed out the fact that unemployment and growth would be mcuh better than they are now if we HAD done that.
Again, you’re making things up. No one says unions are inherently evil, though many of them certainly do evil things.
You can’t do it RATIONALLY, no.
Economic growth is — always — one of the most important measurements. Alone it doesn’t mean much, of course, but it is always included as one of the factors.
I could not care less what they complain about. They are not me. If they want to tax themselves highly, that is their business, not mine. And my taxes are my business, not theirs. See how that works?
*headdesk*
You do not fix that by trying to make rich people less rich. That’s insanity, firstly, because it is not possible: no country has ever successfully done it. Ever. But also because it’s avoiding the real problem, which is that special interests CAN exert undue influence over your government in the first place.
That is the problem to fix, not the fact that there’s rich people who can exert such influence.
Also, frankly, I think you protest wayyyyyy too much, because the SEIU and AARP other groups who are comprised primarily of middle class and poor people exert more influence than most of the “elite” do.
But getting back to the point, you are completely missing the point, which is that we are talking about the economy, and you have not made any economic argument why it is bad for the rich to get richer. You have been using it as an economic argument all this time, but haven’t actually provided a reason for that.
Then maybe you should actually pay attention?
Because he argues against your point?
False.
Not NEARLY as heterogenous as the U.S. Not even remotely close.
Logic error. There is no rational basis for the claim that if something works somewhere, then it will work somewhere else.
Oh please. You gave not a single shred of evidence that the “ruling elite” has given anyone the shaft, or robbed the country. You say they exert influence, but so does the SEIU. You say they got tax breaks, but they pay a lot more taxes. You throw out a lot of angry language, but are extremely short on actual evidence of anyone getting shafted or robbed.
And how does this represent our country getting “robbed” or anyone getting “shafted” by the “ruling elite”?
If you want to make the argument that some commpanies and individuals screw over other people, well, no kidding. This happens in EVERY country. But it doesn’t actually make a point. The answer is not “let’s go get our pitchforks!,” the answer is to fix the credit card system, an effort which I supported last year.
Just like the answer to “rich people influence the government too much” is not “let’s tax the rich as much as possible!,” it is to reduce the ability for ANYONE to exert similar influence over the government.
You need to fight actual problems, and not chase your tail, if you want to improve the country. You will never get rid of the “elite.” No one ever has. You need to find ways to mitigate the negative effects they can have, not try to tear them down directly, which won’t work, and will hurt everyone else.
You should read Federalist 10. It’s not an easy read, but it is instructive. It talks about how we cannot fix the problems of undue influence that harms others (which in this context, Madison refers to as factionalism) by trying to take away the rights of people to act in their own interests: “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”
The American Way is not to go after liberties we dislike the exercise of, but to diminish the potential effects of the exercise of those liberties. Bastiat would say that the problem is that government is too large, such that it has power over things people want to control, and that they therefore control government to control those things: the answer therefore is to give government less power.
Madison would say that the answer is to structure government better so that a self-interested group is incapable of exerting such power, by limiting not the size, but the scope, of government power. We do this through significant limitations on the power of the federal government in the Constitution (limitations Obama and the Democrats simply ignore, but, as the federal judge said yesterday in the Virginia lawsuit against “ObamaCare,” still exist).
I think we need some of both Bastiat and Madison: a smaller government in both scope and size. This is the way to make all of us freer. That doesn’t mean “deregulate,” it means to have only those regulations that are “necessary and proper” for preserving our liberty, and not just following whatever the special interests want today.
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:58 AM
The truth is that big business has long used government to secure favorable regulatory environments, suppress competition, ensure quazi-monopolistic pricing, and gain unfair access to public resources and the public purse. Big business interests have also frequently used government to exploit the working class, fleece consumers, corrupt politicians, and engage in fraud, deception, and misrepresentation. Indeed, without collusion with politicians and government protection from free-market competition, big business oligopolies would be unable to compete with more efficient, more agile, and more responsive smaller businesses.
The concentration of economic power in the hands of persons controlling our largest corporations has also long been used to unduly influence government trade policy, tax policy, labor policy, environmental policy, and foreign policy through lobbying, the formation of policy planning groups, and even outright bribery.
Indeed, the history of modern capitalism for at least the past 120 years shows how private interests have repeatedly usurped government to institute and normalize unfair business practices. Modern examples include pharmaceutical pricing, exorbitant bank fees, mortgage fraud, usurious interest rates, predatory lending, credit card swipe fees, and the creation of “innovative” financial instruments, such as subprime mortgages.
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:11 AM
Who said anything about getting rid of the elite? And, increasing their tax rates by 3% is NOT going to “tear them down directly.” Don’t be ridiculous.
All I want is to level the playing field with fair and equitable policies, so the elite do not have an undue influence over our government, compared to the people. And, I want the elite to pay their fair share.
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:29 AM
I was amused by Pudge’s use of headdesk. It is the classic case of transference. All this guy has done for me is to solidify why Koster and his ilk would be a disastrous choice for our state.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/936893/how_to_avoid_an_argument_with_someone.html?cat=4
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:33 AM
Republicans have been promising us “a smaller government in both scope and size,” ever since Reagan said he’d get an intrusive government off our backs. But, instead of getting government off the backs of small businesses or average Americans, he actually expanded government, weakened unions, increased military spending, gutted environmental regulations, and freed the financial sector to run rough shod all over American consumers. Republicans also doctored the tax code to unfairly benefit the super-rich, at everyone else’s expense, and they instituted a set of policies that have dramatically increased economic inequality in the United States. Of course, they did all of this while waving the flag and chanting mantras to liberty and freedom. Well, I ain’t buying it anymore.
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:53 AM
Here’s an interesting read from the Cato Policy Report, by Timothy P. Carney, entitled “Big Business and Big Government,” which makes some interesting points about corporatism.
August 3rd, 2010 at 9:07 AM
So Todd what are you buying?
“If the Republicans would have won in 2008, they would not have been able to do what President Obama has accomplished, simply because it would have looked like the Corporate Takeover of the Century.
AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the list goes on and on.
The Housing Crisis was manufactured by the Conglomerate Banks – and the two biggest still survive – Bank of America and Wells Fargo – which combined, own approximately 70% of the outstanding bad asset loans.
Now, all of the banks that paid back the FAKE TARP money – can LEGALLY give huge bonuses to their top echelon banking elite. Hundreds of millions of dollars – TAXPAYER dollars – in the form of salaries, bonuses and future stock options are being paid out….
Warren Buffet, the richest man in the WORLD, is an Obama supporter.
Bill Gates, the second richest man in the WORLD, is an Obama supporter – and heavy contributor.
George Soros, one of the richest men in the world, is an Obama supporter – and heavy contributor. It has just been RUMORED that he has a very large stake in an oil drilling consortium off the coast of Brazil, that has received money from the US government – TAXPAYER MONEY.
These are not Republican fat cats. They are Democrats.
http://www.theamericantelegraph.com/?p=272&utm_source=The+American+Telegraph+List&utm_campaign=2f145a7921-Edition_24&utm_medium=email
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
August 3rd, 2010 at 9:10 AM
Tedd: It’s red, I can see it. It’s broad daylight and it is clearly red. It’s a firetruck and I’m looking right at it.
Chrispy: You’re wrong Tedd. It’s not broad daylight. Daylight can’t be broad only bright.
And since you think it is broad daylight, maybe it is really dark, since you say nothing of brightness.
And you’re just as wrong about it as you can be that because it’s a firetruck it is red. Some are yellow.
Are you sure you’re not confusing red with yellow. I think you mean yellow. You’re just wrong as usual, and stupid too.
You really mean yellow.
Tedd: Quit putting words in my mouth. It is red. It is daylight. It is a firetruck and now the siren is screaming…
Chrispy: I never put words in your mouth. I only said maybe it could be yellow, since some are you know.
But I’m still not sure you can discern daylight. You know red looks black in the dark.
Maybe it was early daylight, almost dark and of course anyone’s perceptions would be hindered by the dark.
Also what kind of siren. Maybe it isn’t a siren at all. Maybe it’s an alarm. There is a difference.
I think you mean it sounds like a siren, but it probably is an alarm since what would a liberal know about a siren.
It’s too bad you just keep resorting to half truths. You don’t know if it is early, daylight, dark, light, yellow, red or anything.
You have not scored any points in this debate my friend. I’m right, you’re wrong. Usually happens that way.
Tedd: They’re getting out a ladder now and hoses and one fireman is going up the ladder to rescue a woman.
Chrispy: How do you know it’s a woman. it could be a man dressed as a woman. It could be a small boy or a cross dresser.
As usual you are resorting to assumption to further you’re argument and once more you are wrong.
Tedd: It says station three on the side and so do the other trucks surrounding it.
Chrispy: Maybe you should pay attention to me and quit relying on your lying eyes. So now it’s other trucks, but you don’t say if they are fire trucks or dump trucks. You also didn’t mention them before. So I think you just made that up. You said there was Just the one vehicle and you didn’t know if it was red or yellow, if it was daylight or dark or if it had a siren or if a car alarm was going off nearby and you mistook it for this vehicle. Nothing yo say makes any sense, you have not changed my mind in any way and you will always be wrong. Nice try.
Tedd, you are just wrong again. Why don’t you try reading up on Federalist 69. it’s hard to read but it’s everything to me.
A CASUAL OBSERVER MIGHT CONCLUDE WHAT IS THE FIBRILLATING POINT!
August 3rd, 2010 at 9:29 AM
Chrispy: You also didn’t mention a fire Tedd. You didn’t mention flames, smoke or screaming children, so you must be lying about everything. Clearly if you had wanted to bolster your argument you would have mentioned that fact. That you didn’t says that I not only interpret the Constitution more correctly than a Harvard law professor who has run up our debt, but that you will stoop to any tactic.
Tedd: There was no smoke or fire, it was a suicide attempt and they used the ladder to talk the young woman down.
Chrispy: Oh please, you gave not a single shred of evidence that there was even a truck let alone it’s color, if it was daylight, the siren probably didn’t even work on that old truck and besides, I could care less what you tell me Tedd. I care about what I think about me and what I say is true. Once again you’re making things up.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:10 PM
AFY,
Big business interests and the power elite do not care all that much about political parties these days; they use Republicans and Democrats with nearly equal aplomb and ease. However, there is little doubt that, historically, the Republican Party has been far more closely allied with corporate interests, whereas the Democrats have far more often championed the interests of labor, the working class, and the poor. Of course, this is especially true of more progressive social democrats than Blue Dogs or so-called “moderates.”
As for contemporary personalities who serve the same function once reserved for the likes of Howard Hughes, media portrayals of the nouveau riche and ostentatious displays of wealth have more to do with perpetuating a myth of upward mobility and very little to do with the exercise of raw political power, which more often than not, happens completely outside of the peoples’ awareness.
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:00 PM
The reason we have a country in the condition that it is in today is because the national ruling class whether republican or democratic is all about keeping their incumbents in power, at all cost, whatever it takes, from who ever will give for what ever reason they will give.
We need to term limit all national incumbents and for any of those who will be newly elected, let’s make it well known that to do the bidding of the special interest over WE THE PEOPLE will get you term limited too!
To say one has not been as bad as the other is to say bad is not bad!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:13 PM
Todd2:
Yes. You are not disagreeing with me.
Exactly. So the problem is GOVERNMENT. Thank you for agreeing with me!
You’re just giving conservative talking points now, Todd!
Yep. The hands of those people at our largest corporations like Chevron and SEIU!
No, in fact, you’ve made the opposite case. You’ve made the case for collusion, not usurpation. Very different.
That said: mostly yes, and the problem is to fix it so Chevron and SEIU cannot control government, not take away the liberty of people to band together into groups with their own money. That is a fundamental evil.
You said you want to take away their money so they won’t have that sort of power. What else could you have meant?
That is precisely what it does, in fact. Perhaps you thought I meant it would ruin them or make them poor or middle class or something. No, I mean it will tear them down by about … three percent. Well, more, since you’re wrong, it’s not a three percent tax increase, it’s about a 10 percent tax increase, but three percentage points. (Though you probably meant that.)
Then — again — you’re going about it completely the wrong way. Raising taxes obviously is not fair or equitable (it’s the opposite: you are treating rich people differently, worse, than everyone else), and it results in no increase in fairness or equality. At most it makes you feel some sense of justice because you stuck it to The Man.
But you argued the opposite: you said this will hardly affect the “elite.” It’s only three percentage points, after all.
As proven beyond any doubt, they already pay far more than their fair share.
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:12 PM
I never advocated limiting peoples’ right of assembly, so why would you suggest such a thing?
No I didn’t. I said we should repeal the Bush tax cuts to help alleviate our deficits.
Oh, horsepucky. Increasing the tax rate for the top income earners by another 3 percentage points isn’t going to “tear them down.” In fact, after all the government has done for them, I think paying the higher rate is the least they could do.
That’s just silly talk.
Just like many other government policies, our current tax laws unfairly benefit the super-rich at everyone else’s expense. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would only be a minor first step in the direction of a more equitable tax code, which in my opinion, is sorely needed in this country.
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Todd,
You confuse (or conflate, perhaps) tax rates with tax revenues. The taxpayers in the highest brackets, have high incomes, but are, for the most part, not rich. They do, however, like many in the US, wish to become rich.
While these energetic people bust their butts working to make money, the truly rich work to shelter their income from any kind of taxation. They do it very successfully. The truly rich don’t work for wages, do they? They invest in tax-sheltered instruments of various kinds, all perfectly legal. The ’shelter’ features of those investments have a public purpose, which is to reduce the cost of debt for government entities. Perhaps you’d like to change that?
Nothing that you’ve proposed would tax the rich.
What it would do is reduce employment and suppress capital formation.
Read this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html
“Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues. ”
—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:31 PM
I would invite the Congress to allow the ‘Bush tax cuts’ on the ‘rich’ to expire. As a test, we could then observe the effect on tax revenues from the ‘rich’, wich I predict will fall, both in real numbers and as a percentage of total tax revenues.
Would you be happy then?
August 3rd, 2010 at 9:45 PM
I’d be dancing on air.
August 4th, 2010 at 6:38 AM
Todd:
You misquoted me, Todd.
That is EXACTLY what you said! You said you wanted to raise taxes, in part, to fight against “income inequality.” Then you said, “There are many arguments against inequality, but I am concerned that the elite enjoy too great an influence over our political affairs, compared to other classes.”
Again: you’re arguing against undeniable facts, Todd. It will “tear them down” at a marginal rate of precisely 4.6 percentage points. How can you argue otherwise?
In the overwhelming majority of cases, THEY have done for government FAR MORE than government has done for them.
You’re denying the facts. Half the country pays NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL, and everyone else pays less than they did before. What mythical “expense” are you referring to? And how is paying a much higher percentage, and a continually much higher portion of the whole, an “unfair benefit”?
You’re just making things up, Todd. I know it sounds nice and makes you feel good to say that, but it’s just flatly contradictory of the facts.
Except, of course, that the facts prove that any inequality in the tax code is AGAINST the “super-rich.” They pay higher rates and pay far more of the overall burden than anyone else. This is, by definition, unequal.
Not that I will shed a tear for them, but to pretend that the majority of the country that is paying no federal income tax at all is somehow getting “the shaft” because the rich is not taxed even more … it’s just plain stupid.
August 4th, 2010 at 9:40 AM
pudge,
You call me stupid. You claim I deny the facts. But the truth is that, when you say things like “THEY have done for government FAR MORE than government has done for them,” it is obvious that you do not have a very solid grasp of history, and it is you who are embracing falsehoods.
You also claim that
This is called progressive taxation, which is present in nearly all tax systems in the world. Even Adam Smith embraced progressive taxation, when he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:
And, as I’ve pointed out, nearly all of the income gains for the past 30 years have gone straight to the top, so it is little wonder they are paying “more of the overall burden,” especially compared to those classes whose incomes haven’t even kept up with inflation.
In the book I cited above, David Cay Johnston (2003), the former tax reporter with The New York Times for thirteen years, put it this way:
He also considers social security taxes and notes that
And, as Davesix points out, most of this is perfectly legal, and why not? The super-rich have an undue influence over public policy in the U.S.
As Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said last year:
Republican politicians know where power lies in America, and when it has come to tax policy, they’ve given the super-rich preferential treatment. Indeed, Republicans have given the power elite nearly everything they’ve wanted, and why not? Their lobbyists vastly outnumber our Congressional representatives, the bulk of campaign contributions come from the top, the super-rich craft policy in the think tanks that they fund, and they’ve convinced conservative voters to actively push elite interests. Even Davesix believes that “The taxpayers in the highest brackets, have high incomes, but are, for the most part, not rich.”
I guess he doesn’t know much about the super-rich who comprise the power elite. I guess he hasn’t seen their mansions, flown on their private planes, or sipped their champagne. Way back in 1976, Collier and Horowitz reported that David Rockefeller owned 85 fully-staffed mansions around the world, where the linens were pulled down every night in each master bedroom, because they never knew when the boss might show up. Heck, they even pay Rush Limbaugh $400 million a year to spout their propaganda, while he’s nothing more than a demagogic talk radio host.
During the past presidential election, the propagandists had middle and upper class conservative voters fearful that Obama was going to “re-distribute their income.” A friend of mine, who is a staunch Republican with a six-figure income, told me in 2008 that his greatest fear about an Obama presidency was that the government would confiscate his income and re-distribute it to the poor, “who are obviously that way, because they are too lazy to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” Of course, as any serious student of social stratification and economic history knows, most of these propaganda messages are a load of hooey.
My conservative friend makes a lot of money, lives in a very large house in a smart suburb, owns three cars, vacations overseas, and yet he is nowhere near being a member of the super-rich. In fact, he merely works for them in the oil and gas industry.
The truth is that members of the power elite rarely appear in our media, and the average American knows nothing about them, which of course, is just what they want. Instead of believing what you hear from right-wing media or conservative think tanks, both you and Davesix would do well to read the books I previously cited.