There’s no escaping Mary Matalin this morning at Sea-Tac Airport. She’s on all the teevees. We have to return to “what we know works,” Mary keeps telling me, “targeted tax cuts.” Can’t argue with her—when have targeted tax cuts ever let us down?
American Morning
Comments are closed.
It’s either that or the dark road to socialism we’re headed down now, according to them.
On CNN this morning John King had Orszag asking why Obama was leaving in the earmarks. Orszag was shifting and dodging but King wasn’t buying it.
But King wasn’t angry or annoyed, just disillusioned. It was like a kid finding out there is no Santa, or when Cindy Lou Who sees the Grinch making off with the tree; “Why, Santa? Why?”
Orszag had some crap about 9th inning and we’ll get them next year but it was sad to see the look in Kings face and sound in his voice.
I think he represents a lot of Progressive Americans who voted for Obama and are asking “Why?” about a lot of things.
This whole “earmarks” thing is just a manufactured topic designed to appeal to dullards and concern trolls like our friend “weeping”.
One man’s “earmark” is another man’s “needed civic improvement”. In fact, most of the ones that the GOP keeps harping on are actually legitimate projects that will help people across the country.
Take the Iowa pig odor study: Strip away the GOP simple-minded talking points, and you will find that it is a project that could improve conditions near agricultural factories everywhere. Of course, there’s probably a Republican fear that it might cause Monsanto, ConAgra, and all the other food producers to spend more money and treat their wastewater. Hence, their attempts to ridicule.
3 gee Cat, you need to get the good word to Obama because he ran on a platform of doing away with earmarks.
These are tough times, it is hard to know what to do.
When have tax increases ever gotten us out of a financial crisis?
Obama just needs to change the name. Instead of earmarks call them “high priority projects” or “projects not picked by bureaucrats” or just “named projects”.
It would be good if the dems would think before they include named projects and be sure that they give them good names.
I preferred her in Children of a Lesser God.
Personally, I’m kinda fond of the good, old-fashioned name “pork.” Has a nice ring to it.
WWII – the marginal tax rate at the top was 90% – the same yammering ninnies that claim FDR’s programs didn’t get us out of the Depression say it was WWII.
The Clinton tax increase of 93 lead to 7 years of expansion and a surplus budget at the end.
The Bush tax cuts have worked really well.
9
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses
The SP is down 20% since Obama took office (six short weeks ago).
The financial sector is the area of greatest need, Obama could set forth a plan to deal with the crisis and calm concerns- instead Financials are down 37% under Obama.
Gutted stock prices should be a great buying opportunity. Obama’s capital gains tax increase will mean that any gains from stocks purchased now will get whacked. No wonder people won’t get in the market. Seems poor timing.
3 gee Cat, you need to get the good word to Obama because he ran on a platform of doing away with earmarks.
Actually, he didn’t. McCain did. Obama ran on a platform of reducing (not eliminating) earmarks and increasing transparency.
But thanks for your CONCERN.
It’s interesting how people throwing the word “socialism” around seem to be counting on the fact that no one knows what socialism is.
12
Then someone should cue Orszag because he was promising that there won’t be any next year.
#10 – and Obama is giving similar breaks to all under $250K while raising taxes on those above back to Clinton levels.
It is disconcerting how long it is taking the Administration to fill key positions.
Especially in the Treasury Dept, Geithner’s proposed deputies are dropping like flies.
Bush 2 was the first American president to lower taxes while the country went to war.
I think the News Networks should adopt a bias toward observable fact. Tax cuts didn’t stimulate the economy under Hoover. They helped cause the problems we currently have. Giving more money to rich people at the expense of the majority has never been successful at stimulating anything but rich people’s vacations. I’m all for hearing all sides of an argument so long as both sides are required to be truthful. The Republicans are trying to rewrite history to get their way. The news shouldn’t give them the means to do so.
@14:
Feel free to provide a citation of Orszag promising there won’t be any earmarks next year.
Oh wait, you can’t because you’re making shit up.
@4 You are trying too hard. We were there for the election. We remember it. It’s pretty well documented. All I have to do is type in ‘earmarks obama’ in google and I can find everything he’s ever said on the subject.
Counting on mass amnesia when you lie about history to push your agenda won’t work as well as it has in the past.
Of course you may want to consider the fact that if you have to lie to people to get them to be on your side, maybe your side isn’t that great, and you should start examining the assumptions you’ve made about politics.
I’d rather look at each of these specified projects and bitch about them individually than whine and tear my clothes about “earmarks,” because earmarks are bullshit. It’s whether a project is good or bad that should be the criteria, especially in bills that are basically about spending. Being from Illinois originally, I am in fact more interested in letting Congress name off a few budgetary items because that’s the only way any city that isn’t Chicago gets funds for anything at all.
I respect the fact that you need something to whine about, and “earmarks” are handy because you can see them and understand them and most of them don’t go to something that’s specially important to you. But please don’t forget that it’s actually bullshit and there are bigger things to worry about.
TAX CUTS, TAX CUTS, Squaaaak, LIBERALS, TAX CUTS, Awwwwwk, TAX CUTS, LIBERALS!
17
Raising or not taxes doesn’t ‘give more money’ to the rich, it leaves people their own money. And it doesn’t come at the expense of the poor, it never was theirs to begin
with. And merely having something for the Democrats to plunder isn’t a crime in this country (yet).
18
From CNN’s report on Orszag’s interview with John King this morning:
“The spending bill currently being considered by Congress contains thousands of earmarks — nearly $8 billion directed by lawmakers for specific projects in their home states. As a candidate, Obama campaigned on a pledge of earmark reform.
But Orzag on Sunday defended the administration’s decision not to force Congress to remove earmarks from the bill, which was negotiated last fall, before Obama took office.
“Would we have written this thing differently? Absolutely,” Orszag told King. “But we face a basic choice here, which is this was negotiated last fall. It’s been baked in….is it uglier than we’d like? Yes. But again, this was negotiated last year. We think we should just move on. When we are engaged in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process, it’s going to look a lot different.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200…
@22: The fact that money is worth anything in the first place is the result of the total economy, not just the work of the person earning it. A large portion of that total economy, moreover, is the work of various levels of government.
So, while I understand why the rich would prefer to pay as few taxes as possible, they need to realize that public infrastructure and safety services increase the value whatever work they do exponentially. It’s only right that they give something back.
18
19
20
Poor John King, seems he can’t quit whining about earmarks.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politic…
24
The “richest” 1% of Americans pay 34 times their “fair” share.
They already “give something back”; thank you.
The bottom 40% pay 5% of taxes. Maybe they need to get off their asses and “give something back”.
(wiki)
The top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 34.4% of federal income taxes. The next 4% earned 12.7% and paid 20.8%. The next 5% earned 10.1% and paid 12.5%. The next 10% earned 14.8% and paid 14.8%, completing the highest quintile, which paid 82.5% of federal income taxes. The fourth quintile earned 20.7% of all income and paid 14.3%. The third quintile earned 14.2% and paid 5.2%. The second quintile earned 9.2% and paid 0.3%. The lowest quintile earned 4.2% and received a net 2.3% from the federal government in income ‘credits’. When including social security insurance taxes: In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 22.7% of all federal taxes. The next 4% earned 12.7% and paid 15.8%. The next 5% earned 10.1% and paid 11.5%. The next 10% earned 14.8% and paid 15.3%, completing the highest quintile for a total of 65.3%. The fourth quintile earned 20.7% of all income and paid 18.5%. The third quintile earned 14.2% and paid 10%. The second quintile earned 9.2% and paid 4.9%. The lowest quintile earned 4.2% and paid 1% of all federal taxes.
The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the share of federal income taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels.
The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes –
the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income),
the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%),
the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%),
and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in…
@22,
U R stoopid. Every time tax cuts are handed to the rich, the burden of paying for the government falls more and more on the middle class and poor. Or didn’t you know about the many types of regressive taxes that poor people do pay?
The most pathetic thing about this? Five bucks says none of these dimwits make more than $250k. You are advocating for the welfare of other people. People who don’t give a fuck about you. People who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. Get a life and extract your tongue from Rush Limbaugh’s ass.
I like how the regulars here keep getting trolled into “political debates” with the nonstop trollbot. Trying to reason with him/her/it is like arguing with pidgeons on the sidewalk…
@27,
How about you not be a LYING asshole and take all of it into account? Social Security taxes, Medicare, regressive property and sales taxes. You are not fooling anyone, asshole.
30
Wiki doesn’t lie, my good friend.
(btw your medicine seems to have worn off)
@23:
I don’t see anything in that quote about Obama promising to eliminate earmarks so I think we can safely assume you were lying all this time.
@30:
You’re claiming an article that specifically talks about “federal income taxes” includes payroll taxes and state taxes in the equation?
Did you fail reading comprehension in school?
32
You may safely ASSume anything you wish.
33
My goodness, Social Security is a “trust fund”; you liberals should know that.
And Obama, Magic as he is, isn’t Governor of any of the 50 states so we really shouldn’t blame him for state tax rates, should we.
of course the basic assumption is that those “earning” hundreds of millions, in one way or another, actually deserve it as a measure of value to society, the theoretical rational.
those bankers making millions while running their banks out of business or the hedge fund managers that either lost money or just plain stole it while “earning” piles of money.
the top 400 taxpayers paid an average tax of 17% down about 5% in just a couple of years.
and yes kesh most of the yo-yos that post this crap or pass on emails will never make over $100,000 but defend the rights of billionaires.
the highest tax rate before the Depression was 25% – low enough?
if the government didn’t provide the means of exchange that is the US dollar, the rich would need a lot of chicken coops.
@34
Provide a citation that Obama promised to eliminate earmarks or admit that you made it up.
It’s pretty simple: You contribute positively to the discussion and we further it. You talk bullshit and we insult you. Your choice.
37
I realize you are panicky over the prospect that $1.7 to research pig odor may be cut- may I suggest you double up on the amount of perfume you apply as a fall back.
Not only is the budget full of earmark pork, Democrats are lying about how much it is by half (according to CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politic…
Most of the trolls nowadays are all Paultards, so the best way to defeat them is not to argue on the silly point they’re trying feebly to make, and instead point out how ridiculous and awful Ron Paul is. Specifically how he would have singlehandedly destroyed our currency by reverting back to the gold standard, would be presiding over 30% unemployment at least by this point, how we would have been attacked by terrorists at least twice by now because of his isolationist dogma, and how his wife isn’t nearly as hot Michelle Obama because Ron Paul is too much of dorky loser to ever get anyone remotely attractive to come near him. Just like all of his supporters.
Then they all start frothing at the mouth and scurry back into their basement to weep over their much worn copy The Ron Paul Money Book until the next topic comes along.
39
Everyone is an expert on trolls.
Sometimes I struggle with the whole ‘taxing the rich’ thing – but then I hear rich people like Bill Clinton and Bill Maher – even Buffett – who admit they pay too little.
I suppose there are a good many wealthy Americans who actually innovated and produced something useful. But most are lying, grabbing semi-criminals who have USED poorer Americans to make their fortune. (Or just inherited it.)
The good guys seem to be willing to pay more. It’s only the greedy bastards who rant and rave.
Of course, it sets plots for my ‘future’ fiction where the poor working slobs literally sell themselves or their children into slavery in order to eat and have a roof over their heads.
Oh – or was that the past?? Sometimes, it’s so hard to tell.
When you don’t know history, you’re doomed to repeat it.
Do we really want Oliver Twist to happen again??
24
27
So the “rich” pay:
34 times their fair share based on a per capita basis and
double their fair share based on income.
The bottom half of the income scale pay:
1/15 their fair share per capita and
1/4 their fair share based on income.
Who needs to give something back?
The top 20% income quintile now pay 80% of taxes; the bottom 40% pay NO income tax.
Under Obama’s plan the top 20% will pay 90% of taxes and the bottom 50% will pay none.
(LA Times last Saturday)
top .1% make 9% of all income.
bottom 50% make 14% of all income.
perhaps the distribution isn’t proportional to contribution.
The rich should be taxed for being alive.
I absolutely can’t stand that awful woman. Her face is so Botoxed she can barely move her lips when she’s speaks. Then there’s her sneering condescension…Honestly, I don’t know what James Carville sees in her. I pity you being forced to watch her on the tube. Whenever I see her on TV I quickly grab for the remote to get her out of my sight.