Tag Archives: taxes

The View’s Hasselbeck Pummels Valerie Jarrett on Economy; Liberal Co-hosts Repeatedly Change Subject

Interviewing White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett yesterday, The View’s liberal co-hosts repelled Elisabeth Hasslebeck’s tough questions on President Obama’s failed economic agenda by changing the subject and ignoring their conservative colleague’s criticism. Refuting the claim that the economy is “certainly moving in the right direction” despite dismal unemployment numbers, Hasselbeck asked Jarrett if Obama’s $50 billion infrastructure bill represents an “admittance of failure on the $800 billion stimulus bill that didn’t seem to work.” To sidestep Hasselbeck’s question, Jarrett invoked incredulity, flawed statistics, and historical revisionism: Didn’t seem to work? My goodness, to the three million people who have jobs today – to their families – I’d say it did work. Now it turned out that the economy was in far worse shape than anyone could have predicted, and so we’re not out of the hole yet, but those three million families are certainly better off. The millions of families whose jobs were saved as a result of our investment in the automotive industry, all of the small businesses. “If [the stimulus package] worked so well you wouldn’t need the $50 billion,” retorted Hasselbeck, pressing Jarrett to answer her original question. But instead of waiting for Jarrett to respond, co-host Joy Behar changed the subject to the auto bailout: “I don’t hear enough from the Democrats tooting their own horn on that one.” Delighted to be bailed out of answering a tough question, Jarrett gushed, “Help us tout it, you’re absolutely right. Not just GM, but Chrysler and Ford – all three of them are now having profits for the first time in a decade, they’re all doing well. And that’s a result of the steps [Obama] took.” And before Hasselbeck could repeat her question, co-host Sherri Shepherd changed topics again:  “I want to move it around a little bit and ask about you.” A few minutes later, after Jarrett and her liberal allies exchanged playful banter about family trips to Chuck E. Cheese and her longtime friendship with the Obamas, Hasselbeck made one last attempt to hold the Obama confidant accountable: “I think there’s trouble now that’s to be had or else we wouldn’t need to spend another $50 billion if the plan had worked.” This time, co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters jumped to Jarrett’s defense. “We could go on and on,” contended Goldberg. “We could go on and on,” echoed Walters, who proceeded to end the interview. A transcript of the relevant portions of the September 13 “The View” can be found below: ABC The View September 13, 2010 11:38 A.M. E.S.T. JOY BEHAR: He’s criticized a lot for not focusing on jobs. He focused on health insurance. Does he regret that he didn’t do it the other way around? VALERIE JARRETT, White House senior adviser: Well, let me say this: don’t you think it’s important to have a president who can multi-task? BEHAR: Yes. JARRETT: And so he did focus on the economy from day one and if you think about it, Joy, when he took office we were losing over 750,000 jobs every single month, four million jobs in the last six months of the Bush administration. And half of the last eight months we’ve seen private sector growth. Unemployment rate is still too high – you’re right, Elisabeth, it’s not nearly where we would want it to be – we won’t be happy until every single American who wants to work is working. But we are certainly moving in the right direction and it was a terrible condition that he inherited. I mean, think about. ELISABETH HASSELBECK: If I could, on that note, Valerie, because I think it’s important. With the new $50 billion infrastructure bill that the president outlined Friday, correct? JARRETT: Last week, yes. HASSELBECK: Some people are calling that an admittance of failure on the $800 billion stimulus bill that didn’t seem to work. JARRETT: Didn’t seem to work? My goodness, to the three million people who have jobs today – to their families – I’d say it did work. Now it turned out that the economy was in far worse shape than anyone could have predicted, and so we’re not out of the hole yet, but those three million families are certainly better off. The millions of families whose jobs were saved as a result of our investment in the automotive industry. All of the small businesses. HASSELBECK: If it worked so well you wouldn’t need the $50 billion. BEHAR: I don’t hear enough from the Democrats tooting their own horn on that one. JARRETT: Help us tout it, you’re absolutely right. BARBARA WALTERS: The president has talked about it. JARRETT: Not just GM, but Chrysler and Ford – all three of them are now having profits for the first time in a decade, they’re all doing well. And that’s a result of the steps he took. SHERRI SHEPHERD: I want to move it around a little bit and ask about you. You had a really interesting background. You were born in Iran, you lived in Iran for five years, then you lived in London for one year, then you came back. You said while you were out there you had no awareness of race until you came back during the 60s, during the civil rights movement. So when you were back here, what kinds of things did you experience in terms of race? 11:43 A.M. E.S.T. WALTERS: What do you call him? SHEPHERD: When you’re at Chuck E. Cheese? JARRETT: I’ve had my share of Chuck E. Cheese. It’s wonderful when you’ve got a five year old. No but when I’m out of the office and I’m just being his friend I call him Barack, but when I’m in the office I call him Mr. President. BEHAR: You’ve known him a long time and I understand he’s never gotten angry with you – you’ve never seen him get angry. A lot of people would like to see that now. We want to see it. HASSELBECK: We’d just like to see jobs. Not anger, results. JARRETT: Well I think it’s important that we have a president with a solid, steady temper. BEHAR: Absolutely true. JARRETT: Particularly during these difficult times. Don’t you think that’s important? It’s important and, you know, I don’t want a president just being, you know, emotional and sounding off. He has too much responsibility and too much power for that, but I also think last week as we’re going into this election season you’re seeing him make some contrasts between kind of the party that wants to go back to the Bush days that got us into all of this trouble – sorry Elisabeth – that we’re in now. HASSELBECK: I think there’s trouble now that’s to be had or else we wouldn’t need to spend another $50 billion if the plan had worked. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: We could go on and on. WALTERS: We could go on and on. And we’ll ask you to come back with us and we can go on and on. I’m sure the president’s very happy that you’re going to remain in your present position. JARRETT: Thank you very much. Thank you. WALTERS: And we want to thank Valerie Jarrett so much. It’s an honor for us to have you on with us, great pleasure.

More:
The View’s Hasselbeck Pummels Valerie Jarrett on Economy; Liberal Co-hosts Repeatedly Change Subject

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: Will GOP Landslide Be a ‘Blessing in Disguise’ for Obama?

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday tried to find the upside to a possible Democratic landslide in November. Talking to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, he wondered if major Republican gains could be ” a blessing in disguise for President Obama. ” [Audio available here .] Stephanopoulos touted the historical model of Bill Clinton losing the Congress in 1994, but being reelected in 1996.The host, who was a senior advisor to Clinton when the Republicans won the Senate and House in 1994, didn’t seem very happy at the time. In his book, All Too Human, he recounted with gloom: ” Our nemesis Newt Gingrich was now Speaker– two heartbeats from the White House. If Clinton really were a prime minister, he’d have been out of a job. ” [Page 322. Emphasis added] O’Reilly dismissed the comparison: “It’s a different world…Bill Clinton was like Martin Van Buren, I mean, as far as the media’s concerned. This is a hyper medium. Everything is blown up the second it happens on the internet and cable.” At one point during the interview, O’Reilly derided the President’s plan to let tax cuts for upper income groups expire as “class warfare.” He pressed the ABC host, “Would you agree with that?” The ABC journalist unsurprisingly quipped, “Not necessarily.” After O’Reilly described a tax rate of 40 percent as too high, the argumentative Stephanopoulos asserted, “That’s what the rates were under Reagan and people did pretty well.” (Of course, the top marginal tax rates under Reagan were actually going down, a point Stephanopoulos ignored.) A transcript of the September 14 segment, which aired at 7:08am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For more now, we’re joined live by the host of The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly. Also has a brand new book: Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama. Welcome back. BILL O’REILLY: Hey, George. How are you? STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m doing great. Thank you. O’REILLY: George never looks tired in the morning. Can you get a close-up of George? STEPHANOPOULOS: Not too close. O’REILLY: Eight o’clock at night. Here’s George. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you’re my bedtime TV watching. I go to bed early. O’REILLY: I appreciate that. STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to talk about the book. Let’s get into the tax fight first. Because, I was struck by the Wall Street Journal this morning. They think that John Boehner, the Republican leader made a big bungle on Sunday when he said he would vote for the extension of middle-class tax cuts, even if all the tax cuts weren’t extended. O’REILLY: Well, I think he was caught in the tanning bed in the salon and he didn’t really hear what was going on. Look, the whole thing is class warfare. Would you agree with that? I mean- STEPHANOPOULOS: Not necessarily. But, go ahead. O’REILLY: No? But, really though, what the President is selling is he’s saying the upper tier are going to have to be responsible for the tax revenue, primarily. And the other people will get a tax cut. He’s saying, “Look. I don’t care about these people, who earn a lot of money. But, you know, I want to help you.” I think that’s class warfare. STEPHANOPOULOS: He’s saying we can’t afford it. He’s saying there’s $700 billion in costs there that we can’t afford. That’s his argument. O’REILLY: Yeah. And who imposed those costs? STEPHANOPOULOS: Who did? O’REILLY: George? He did. So, you know, look. I think 35 percent to the government is a fair deal. I think it is. And then, if you get over 40, which is where he wants to put it, that’s kind of punishing people. So, I don’t buy the tax cuts for the rich. STEPHANOPOULOS: No. That’s what the rates were under Reagan and people did pretty well . O’REILLY: Look, I don’t care whether it was under Reagan or George Washington. All right? I work hard for my money. Do I want to fork over 40 percent over to the feds and then pay property taxes and sales taxes and every other tax in the world? Come on. STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you think is going to happen? O’REILLY: I don’t know. You know, look, it’s going to be another brawl. Republicans will stretch it out just because they want to create, the Republicans do, an image of chaos for November. They want to say that President Obama just can’t govern. That’s what the end game is. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about these midterm elections? We’re seeing, a lot of these states, the Tea Party on the rise, on offense again. You write about the Tea Party in your book. You say- unfortunately, I hope we can put it up right now- “Unfortunately, some Tea Party people play into the bogus far-right stereotype by demonizing President Obama in crude ways. I admire what the President has accomplished in his life. Please, don’t tell Rush Limbaugh. And how he overcame a childhood that could have ruined him.” So, do you think on balance the Tea Party has been a net plus or a minus? O’REILLY: Well, there’s two separations. I say in Pinheads and Patriots that the Tea Party, primarily, patriots because they tell people what they believe and get involved. That’s patriotic. I don’t care, really, what your ideology is. If you’re out there, and you’re sincere and telling people this is the way I’m see my country and I want to improve it, you’re a patriot. Whether, you’re a liberal, a Tea Party person, whatever. Okay? However, if the Tea Party people basically attack President Obama personally, that diminishes their movement. STEPHANOPOULOS: You say, stick to policy. O’REILLY: If they say he’s a Muslim. If they say he was born in, where, Indonesia. This really hurts their overall message of “Get off our back.” The Tea Party message is “Get off our back.” That’s a good message. I mean, I don’t want the feds on my back. I don’t want them in my living room, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: That message has toppled some Republican establishment candidates. Bob Bennett. O’REILLY: Who are deemed to be wishy washy on that. Look, the tea party is a simple movement. They want local control. They want the feds not to have as much power. Whereas, President Obama wants this huge federal apparatus. That’s a good debate. STEPHANOPOULOS: Bottom line, do you think Republicans are going to take control of Congress? And if they do, is that a blessing in disguise for President Obama? O’REILLY: I have no idea. I don’t really do the party politics thing. Morris over- Dick Morris. He thinks they will. But he’s got, you know, he’s rooting for them. But I’ll tell you what. President Obama has got a leadership problem right now. He has got a leadership problem. If he gets whacked, if he loses the House, that’s going to get worse. This is a huge election for President Obama himself. He has a leadership problem. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you think if he loses, that spells trouble for him in 2012? O’REILLY: Of course. STEPHANOPOULOS: Not the opposite, where for Bill Clinton lost in ’94, the Congress, it actually helped him. O’REILLY: It’s a different world. It’s a hyper world now. Bill Clinton was like Martin Van Buren, I mean, as far as the media’s concerned. This is a hyper medium. Everything is blown up the second it happens on the internet and cable. So, it’s no longer those rules. And the perception gets out there much quicker than it did. STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you’ve been weighing in on the controversy over the Islamic center sown at Ground Zero. I was struck yesterday that the imam, Imam Rauf, went to the Council on Foreign Relations, seemed to back off a bit. Said that all options are open. He may even consider moving it. O’REILLY: Did you see the Factor’s exclusive last night? STEPHANOPOULOS: I did. O’REILLY: Rauf is now tied in with this Kahn who is a Truther. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, there’s no evidence that Rauf believes anything like that. O’REILLY: It doesn’t matter. It’s his pal! His pal! STEPHANOPOULOS: They served on a board together. O’REILLY: He’s formed the Muslim organization with him. And the guy, Khan, has been talking down at the Burlington Coat Factory building. I don’t know whether he got a free suit. But, this guy, Khan, says that al Qaeda didn’t do it. And Rauf goes in and says I’m a man of peace. He may be. But who are you hanging around with? And then when we asked Rauf for a comment, he runs and hides. STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to talk to him as well at some point.

Originally posted here:
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: Will GOP Landslide Be a ‘Blessing in Disguise’ for Obama?

Brooks: ‘Tragedy’ If Republicans Reject More Government, Higher Taxes

If a RINO is a Republican In Name Only, let’s coin a new acronym for David Brooks: RINYTO: Republican In New York Times Only.  For only in the Gray Lady’s bailiwick could Brooks be considered much of a Republican. Take his current column in the Times.  Brooks warns Republicans on the verge of regaining power that it would be nothing short of a “tragedy” if they were to oppose . . . more government and higher taxes. Excerpt [emphasis added]: If the current Republican Party regards every new bit of government action as a step on the road to serfdom , then the party will be taking this long, mainstream American tradition and exiling it from the G.O.P. That will be a political tragedy. There are millions of voters who, while alarmed by the Democrats’ lavish spending, still look to government to play some positive role. They fled the G.O.P. after the government shutdown of 1995, and they would do so again. It would be a fiscal tragedy. Over the next decade there will have to be spending cuts and tax increases. If Republicans decide that even the smallest tax increases put us on the road to serfdom , then there will never be a deal, and the country will careen toward bankruptcy. Brooks apparently believes we don’t have enough government and that taxes are too low.  I’d say that makes him a Republican only in the rarefied air of 8th Ave. between 40th & 41st streets.

See the original post:
Brooks: ‘Tragedy’ If Republicans Reject More Government, Higher Taxes

CBS’s Smith Pressures GOP to Sign On to ‘Obama’s New Deal’

On Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith touted President Obama’s economic proposals and portrayed Republicans as obstructionist: “Obama’s new plan. The President proposes to spend $50 billion on roads, airports, and railways and offers businesses a $200 billion tax cut. But the GOP says not so fast.” Later, Smith introduced a report by senior White House correspondent Bill Plante: “With unemployment at 9.6% and the midterm elections just two months away, President Obama is out and about this week promoting new ideas to get the economy moving again.” Plante proclaimed: “Pumped up in full campaign mode before a crowd of union members in Milwaukee, Mr. Obama celebrated his administration’s accomplishments and announced a new project to repair the nation’s infrastructure.” A headline on screen read: “Obama’s New Deal; Announces $50 billion Infrastructure Plan.” Following Plante’s report, Smith spoke with CBS economics and business correspondent Rebecca Jarvis and political analyst John Dickerson about the President’s plans. As Jarvis promoted the idea that more spending would create jobs, Smith asked Dickerson about Republican opposition: “…almost anything that the White House talks about, say over the last couple months or so, has met – had been met with a raspberry, I suppose we should assume this will be met with the same kind of reaction?” Dickerson had earlier used the “raspberry” image to dismiss GOP criticism as pure politics: “Well, the resounding sound was a huge raspberry from all Republican corners to the President’s proposal. You know, they – it’s almost as if these press releases are pre-written.” In reply to Smith, Dickerson suggested a strategy for Obama: “So then does the President have an issue, can he take it on the stump and say, ‘look, I’m even trying to give Republicans things that they want, that they’ve said they’ve wanted, they’re still saying no,’ and that’s going to be his message for the next two months.” Smith followed up: “Is there any chance any of this stuff the White House is talking about is going to get any support from Republicans?” Dickerson remarked: “No….in the end, the President’s going to have to try to rally his troops around the idea that the Republicans are really trying to block anything that’s sensible.” On Sunday’s Face the Nation , Smith filled in for host Bob Schieffer and asked a panel of liberal economists: “was the stimulus big enough?” He also pushed for a “second stimulus,” questioned extending the Bush tax cuts, and proposed the creation of “something like a new WPA” to create jobs. Here is a full transcript of the September 7 segment: 7:00AM TEASE HARRY SMITH: Obama’s new plan. The President proposes to spend $50 billion on roads, airports, and railways and offers businesses a $200 billion tax cut. But the GOP says not so fast. 7:06AM SEGMENT SMITH: Now to the economy and politics. With unemployment at 9.6% and the midterm elections just two months away, President Obama is out and about this week promoting new ideas to get the economy moving again. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has the latest on that. Bill, good morning. BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Harry. The stalled economy has fueled voter discontent and Democrats fears of losing control of Congress. So the President will be on the campaign trail for much of the next two months trying to turn things around. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama’s New Deal; Announces $50 billion Infrastructure Plan] BARACK OBAMA: I am going to keep fighting every single day, every single hour, every single minute, to turn this economy around and put people back to work and renew the American dream. Not just for your family, not just for all our families, but for future generations. PLANTE: Pumped up in full campaign mode before a crowd of union members in Milwaukee, Mr. Obama celebrated his administration’s accomplishments and announced a new project to repair the nation’s infrastructure. The proposal would rebuild 150,000 miles of roads, construct 4,000 miles of rail, and reconstruct 150 miles of runway as well as modernizing the air traffic control system. Administration officials insist this isn’t another stimulus, but the President says it will be a big boost to the economy. OBAMA: This will not only create jobs immediately, it’s also going to make our economy hum over the long haul. PLANTE: House Minority Leader John Boehner shot back in a statement, saying ‘we don’t need more government stimulus spending. We need to end Washington Democrats’ out-of-control spending spree, stop their tax hikes, and create jobs.’ Administration officials propose to pay for the infrastructure rebuilding by eliminating some tax breaks for oil and gas production. And the President will soon propose another tax break for small business. He wants to eliminate taxes on capital investment for the coming year until the end of 2011. Harry. SMITH: Alright, Bill Plante at the White House this morning, thank you. Here now to talk – take a closer look at the President’s plans are CBS News business and economics correspondent Rebecca Jarvis. And in Washington, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson. Good morning to you both. REBECCA JARVIS: Good morning. SMITH: Rebecca, let’s start with you, let’s go through these two plans. The $50 billion, sort of, stimulus junior, as it were, to all of this infrastructure work. JARVIS: Infrastructure- SMITH: This is supposed to be kind of a seed, really, for a much larger idea of addressing infrastructure needs across the country. JARVIS: Absolutely, and well we’ve had these infrastructure needs, obviously, in the very first stimulus, which was about $800 billion, some of the stimulus needs were supposed to be addressed. And if you look at those numbers, that original stimulus dollars, that original 800 billion or so stimulus dollars, that created – according to the Congressional Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan group – that created 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs. So if you think about this infrastructure plan which is $50 billion – that’s the proposal – that, if it’s an apples to apples comparison, it’s a 1/16 of the size of the original plan, could create about 88,000 to 206,000 jobs in a year. SMITH: That’s not a lot of jobs, although it is being welcomed, politically, in some corners and being shunned by – in other quarters. Let’s get John Dickerson on board here to just talk a little bit about the reaction to this. What was the resounding sound, especially from Republicans? JOHN DICKERSON: Well, the resounding sound was a huge raspberry from all Republican corners to the President’s proposal. You know, they – it’s almost as if these press releases are pre-written. They see this as a last-minute desperate attempt by the President. They say more big government spending going to balloon the deficit, this was right into their existing playbook. SMITH: Alright, and let’s talk about this two – this other- DICKERSON: The $200 billion. SMITH: Exactly. Which is a whole – kind of putting a different template on the way businesses sort of write down their own investment in their business. JARVIS: Yeah, as Bill Plante mentioned, it’s an original for two years businesses won’t have to wait to write down their investments in new things. Instead, they’ll get to take off their books, they’ll get to take the deductions in taxes. It’s a $200 billion plan. And some economists estimate it will help grow business investment by 5% to 10%, which could be a boost to some new businesses, as well as new jobs. SMITH: Alright. And John Dickerson, we haven’t heard so much reaction to that yet, but sort of overall, almost anything that the White House talks about, say over the last couple months or so, has met – had been met with a raspberry, I suppose we should assume this will be met with the same kind of reaction? DICKERSON: It will be. And the problem is the President’s got to get these things through Congress and particularly in the Senate, that requires Republican votes and his – the President’s allies in the Senate say that just isn’t going to happen. So then does the President have an issue, can he take it on the stump and say, ‘look, I’m even trying to give Republicans things that they want, that they’ve said they’ve wanted, they’re still saying no,’ and that’s going to be his message for the next two months. SMITH: Because that really ends up being the question. Is there any chance any of this stuff the White House is talking about is going to get any support from Republicans? DICKERSON: No. And though there may an tiny bit of support for this $30 billion small business bill, because small business is something everybody loves. But in the end, the President’s going to have to try to rally his troops around the idea that the Republicans are really trying to block anything that’s sensible. SMITH: Yeah, okay. And finally, last but not least, all through this then, the Bush tax cuts has become this sort of mantra of sorts that the Republicans say, ‘do not touch this. Do not touch this.’ What’s the news on that today? JARVIS: Well, this $200 billion tax credit for businesses throughout the country, some are viewing it as a potential alternative to the Bush tax cuts for the upper earning income earners. SMITH: Alright, thanks very much, Rebecca Jarivs, John Dickerson. Thank you very much for joining us and your insights this morning.

Visit link:
CBS’s Smith Pressures GOP to Sign On to ‘Obama’s New Deal’

From the Archive: George Washington Fought Revolutionary War ‘For Profit’

With the rise of the Tea Party, their push for constitutional limits on government power and admiration for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, I thought I’d use this last holiday of the summer as an opportunity to post an item from the MRC’s archive which exposed how a major cable network once tried to discredit George Washington’s moral authority in history, and thus the legitimacy of the Revolutionary War. In an A&E movie, aired in 2000, on George Washington crossing the Delaware, The Crossing, he is persuaded that just like the hired-gun Hessians, his opposition to British taxes means he too is fighting “for profit.” Jeff Daniels, playing George Washington, decries the Hessians: “You want me to weep for those bastards, men who kill for profit?” General Nathanial Greene counters: “Our own cause is, at its heart, a fight against British taxation, is it not? In the end sir, we all kill for profit — the British and the Hessians, and us.” That convinces Washington. “That spin is no surprise,” a 2000 MRC CyberAlert item noted, “when you learn that the screenplay was written by a communist. Really.” Thanks to Karen Topper, who inexplicitly recently abandoned the MRC for another job, but who transcoded the VHS video to an MPEG-2 file for me before her departure. Audio: MP3 clip “A&E’s 224 Year Old Bias,” from the Friday, January 14, 2000 MRC CyberAlert : Ever imagine how the Revolutionary War might have been portrayed each nightg by Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News? Well, a new A&E movie run Monday night and set to repeat Saturday night, offers a troubling projection. Bottom line: Hired Hessian soldiers were no different in what they were fighting for than George Washington and the Continental Army’s soldiers. But that spin is no surprise when you learn that the screenplay was written by a communist. Really. A man who regularly wrote for the Daily Worker and once penned a book titled, Being Red. Before we get to the bias in question, a little history to catch everyone up. Here’s how the A&E Web site describes their two hour movie starring Jeff Daniels as George Washington, which first ran Monday night: The Crossing recalls Washington’s legendary evening attack against the British Army’s German mercenaries, the Hessians, which changed the course of the Revolutionary War. It is December 17, 1776. Suffering from relentless attacks by the British Army and their German mercenaries, the Continental Army is exhausted. Due to death and desertion, General Washington’s troop of ten thousand men has dwindled to a meager two thousand. Word has reached Washington that his demand for more military support has been denied by Congress. He must retreat. The general feels abandoned, cold, alone. Washington realizes that if he retreats the revolutions will be lost and so embarks upon the defining moment of his life. On Christmas Eve, Washington crosses the Delaware River and his troops launch a surprise attack on the Hessians. During the Battle of Trenton, the Germans are routed, the British Army stunned, and new life is given to the revolution. A CyberAlert reader alerted me to an incredible scene which I confirmed actually was shown in the movie. In the battle the Hessian commander, Colonel Rall, is shot. Continental Army General Nathaniel Greene is sent to tell Washington he should see Rall before he dies. As the two sit on horseback beside each other, viewers hear this exchange between actor David Ferry as General Greene and Jeff Daniels as Washington: NATHANIAL GREENE: General Washington, Colonel Rall is dying. General Mercer says you cannot let him die without speaking to him. It’s a courtesy of war. GEORGE WASHINGTON: Courtesy? There are no courtesies of war, Nathaniel. This is not a parlor game where I must pay my respects to that stinking mercenary who killed five hundred of my men in Brooklyn. Slaughtered them when they tried to surrender, skewered them in the backs with bayonets. You want me to weep for those bastards, men who kill for profit? GREENE: Our own cause is, at its heart, a fight against British taxation, is it not? In the end sir, we all kill for profit — the British and the Hessians, and us. Washington nods and is convinced by the argument, saying after a long pause: “Very well, Nathaniel. We must not let them think we’re savages.” That’s right, a rag-tag army fighting for freedom from onerous British taxation is really seeking “profit” on par with those hired to travel the world to fight wars. Who sees American history this way? Check out the bio on A&E’s Web site for the movie’s screenwriter, Howard Fast: In the ’50s, Fast was blacklisted, and in May 1952 The New York Times reported intimidation of librarians across the nation by Legionnaires, Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution, and Minutemen in Texas and California. Fast’s books were purged from school libraries. Citizen Tom Paine, formerly used as a school text, was banned from use in New York City schools. His 1990 memoir Being Red goes more deeply into the issue. You can read Fast’s angry response to the injustices of the McCarthy era in his own Crisis Papers (1951). He also wrote a poetic eulogy, ‘Never to Forget: The Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto,’ as well as pamphlets, journal articles, and columns for the Daily Worker, Masses & Mainstream, and other radical publications.

Excerpt from:
From the Archive: George Washington Fought Revolutionary War ‘For Profit’

Robert Reich: Stimulate Economy With 90% Tax On Top Earners

Can you imagine what would happen to the economy if top wage earners were taxed at 70 to 90 percent? Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich can, and he thinks it’s a great idea. To be sure, many Americans were concerned that giving Democrats control of the executive and legislative branches of our government during an economic crisis could usher back in socialist tendencies first seen in this nation during the Depression. Fears of such a leftward shift sparked a new powerful movement called the Tea Party. With this in mind, Reich’s op-ed “How to End the Great Recession” published in Friday’s New York Times validates these concerns:  The rich spend a much smaller proportion of their incomes than the rest of us. So when they get a disproportionate share of total income, the economy is robbed of the demand it needs to keep growing and creating jobs. What’s more, the rich don’t necessarily invest their earnings and savings in the American economy; they send them anywhere around the globe where they’ll summon the highest returns – sometimes that’s here, but often it’s the Cayman Islands, China or elsewhere. The rich also put their money into assets most likely to attract other big investors (commodities, stocks, dot-coms or real estate), which can become wildly inflated as a result. Meanwhile, as the economy grows, the vast majority in the middle naturally want to live better. Their consequent spending fuels continued growth and creates enough jobs for almost everyone, at least for a time. But because this situation can’t be sustained, at some point – 1929 and 2008 offer ready examples – the bill comes due. And how does Reich see “us” paying that bill? If you said “higher and higher taxes,” give yourself a cigar: THE Great Depression and its aftermath demonstrate that there is only one way back to full recovery: through more widely shared prosperity. In the 1930s, the American economy was completely restructured. New Deal measures – Social Security, a 40-hour work week with time-and-a-half overtime, unemployment insurance, the right to form unions and bargain collectively, the minimum wage – leveled the playing field. In the decades after World War II, legislation like the G.I. Bill, a vast expansion of public higher education and civil rights and voting rights laws further reduced economic inequality. Much of this was paid for with a 70 percent to 90 percent marginal income tax on the highest incomes. And as America’s middle class shared more of the economy’s gains, it was able to buy more of the goods and services the economy could provide. The result: rapid growth and more jobs. 70 to 90 percent! He said it, didn’t he? 70 to 90 percent! But there’s more: What else could be done to raise wages and thereby spur the economy? We might consider, for example, extending the earned income tax credit all the way up through the middle class, and paying for it with a tax on carbon. Or exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes and paying for it with a payroll tax on incomes over $250,000. Yep. Let’s tax carbon and give the proceeds to lower and middle-income wage earners. There it is, folks. If you doubted the whole global warming scam was specifically designed to redistribute wealth, one of the left’s most-respected economic strategists just admitted it! But there’s still more: In the longer term, Americans must be better prepared to succeed in the global, high-tech economy. Early childhood education should be more widely available, paid for by a small 0.5 percent fee on all financial transactions. Public universities should be free; in return, graduates would then be required to pay back 10 percent of their first 10 years of full-time income. A 0.5 percent fee on all financial transactions! Does that mean if one buy’s stock or a house, the government gets a half of a percent? And another half when you sell? Does that include mutual funds, treasury bills, and money market accounts? And certificates of deposit? See where this could lead? Now just imagine if these socialists also get their way and a new valued added tax is implemented? At that point, any time you want to actually use your money, the government gets a slice kind of like a mafia kingpin or a union leader. And this is supposed to help the economy? But there’s still more: Another step: workers who lose their jobs and have to settle for positions that pay less could qualify for “earnings insurance” that would pay half the salary difference for two years; such a program would probably prove less expensive than extended unemployment benefits. Earnings insurance! Earnings insurance! As I hinted at the onset, this op-ed by Reich is a picture of the future if the Party in power and their media minions get their way.   Be afraid, America! Be very afraid!

See original here:
Robert Reich: Stimulate Economy With 90% Tax On Top Earners

A Civics Lesson for America the Ignorant

3 Terms that people throw around and don't know the meaning of: 1) Constitution – A very simple document that outlines the fundamentals of United States Doctrine. The Constitution’s main purpose is to protect the people from unlawful treatment by the Government. Simply stating that something is Unconstitutional is an easy accusation to make. To prove it usually leads to troubles with the user of the statement. There are only 26 Amendments to the original constitution so labeling so many things as Unconstitutional pretty much statistically makes most of the accusations false. For instance the freedom of speech only guarantees you freedom of persecution by the Government, and only the government. You can't say whatever you want to a private individual and not expect a backlash. You also can't make threats and false accusation. Those are superseded by the Justice System. 2) Socialism – Is a governmental system. Not economic. It has nothing to do with Free Trade or how a person can make money within their own country. Close to every modem nation in the world operates in a Socialist way today. Many people accuse the United States of becoming Socialist but they are either ignorant of the meaning or denying the last century. The United States is a Socialist country already. In fact the Public Education system is one of the largest and most successful Socialist programs in the history of civilization. Medicare is another example. Social Security is another one. Municipal road work. The Interstate System. The list goes on and on. Pretty much anything that the Government does for you with your tax dollars is Socialism. If you want to protest this stop drinking your town water. Stop driving on paved roads. Plow your own Interstate. Teach your own kids K-12. Socialism is meant so that you pay your Government in Taxes and they give you services in return. Nazis and Soviets weren't Socialist. They called themselves this for Propaganda because it's a “caring system”. They were in fact Totalitarian Fascist and Dictators. I'm not going to explain the meaning of the last two because if you can't understand that the US doesn't operate like that you can't understand the meaning's of these words. 3) Communism – This is purely an economic system. It has nothing to with the way the government governs the people. Communism is a flawed system in that it relies all on trust of the Government. In Communism the totaled income of the country is divided evenly amount the Citizens. There are no social classes, no tax brackets, and property is distributed among the people not bought and sold by individuals. It's great in theory but no Government seems to be able to handle the burden and trust needed to implement it. The Soviets butchered the system into punishing the people and reaping the benefits of the private sector's loss income. The United States will never be a Communist society. Financial regulations do not constitute communism. If pick pocketing wasn't a crime and the government suddenly enacted laws banning it would you cry Communism? No, the free trade system still exists you just have to change the way you make money. You can't steal it anymore. There are a plethora of other issues sparking across the nation today. But most are too stupid to even address. Hatred is strong in the nation today and it's disgusting. If we did have a Black Muslim Socialist President what exactly is wrong with that? Ask yourself that. Pull the words apart. Black = Skin Color Muslim = Branch of Judaism just like Christianity Socialist = Last 10 President fit in that realm President = Elected by the people. added by: PrivateBurke

Olbermann Distorts Conservative Adage as a ‘Screw the Poor’ Attack

On Friday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann either showed his ignorance of conservative ideology, or he made his latest deliberate distortion to attack conservatives as he suggested that a Republican candidate for Oklahoma governor expressed a negative attitude toward the poor, referred to by Olbermann as “screw the poor,” when, in reality, she was making the case that the wealthy are important to the economy because they are the wage payers for many people. As she spoke out against raising taxes, Rep. Mary Fallin alluded to the conservative argument that a tax increase on the wealthy would be bad for their employees. Olbermann quoted her version of the common conservative saying that conveys this point. Fallin: “I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been offered a job by a poor person.” The MSNBC host, apparently not getting the point, concluded that her words were meant as an attack on the poor as being useless to her, and tagged her with the top dishonor of “Worst Person in the World.” Olbermann: At a recent tub thumping for the conservative cause, she insisted government spending needs to be cut and tax breaks be given to the wealthy. And then she added this: “I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been offered a job by a poor person.” She did not add, “So screw’em.” That was merely implied. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, August 27, Countdown show on MSNBC: KEITH OLBERMANN: But our winner, Representative Mary Fallon, who is inexplicably running for governor of Oklahoma. At a recent tub thumping for the conservative cause, she insisted government spending needs to be cut and tax breaks be given to the wealthy. And then she added this: “I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been offered a job by a poor person.” She did not add, “So screw’em.” That was merely implied. But, of course, Miss Fallon is factually mistaken. She’s been elected to public office six times since 1990, and if some poor people didn’t vote for her and offer her her job, then the party she belongs to must necessarily be the rich people’s party. Mary “Screw the Poor” Fallon, Republican candidate for governor of Oklahoma, today’s “Worst Person in the World”!

Read the rest here:
Olbermann Distorts Conservative Adage as a ‘Screw the Poor’ Attack

NYT: ‘More Americans – Not Just the Rich – Will Have to Pay More Taxes’

The New York Times on Tuesday declared what most conservatives knew would happen if Democrats took control of both Congress and the White House: “more Americans – and not just the rich – are going to have to pay more taxes.” In its editorial comically titled ” A Real Debate on Taxes ,” the Times predictably argued for a total elimination of the Bush tax cuts, although it favored some partial delay to this given the precarious state of the economy. That in itself was humorous as the Times clearly seems to get that raising taxes is indeed economically damaging. Yet maybe more telling was how this “real debate” didn’t once involve the spending side of the budget: President Obama is right when he says the country cannot afford to extend all of the tax cuts. He wants to let the tax cuts expire on the top 2 to 3 percent of American households (couples making more than $250,000 a year, individuals making more than $200,000) and permanently extend them for everyone else. The problem is that a permanent extension of the so-called middle-class tax cuts is also unaffordable. It makes sense to extend them temporarily, because the weak economy needs the boost. But more revenue will be needed in years to come to keep rebuilding the economy and meet health care and other obligations to retiring baby boomers. That means more Americans – and not just the rich – are going to have to pay more taxes. For all the politicians’ talk about deficits, no one is saying that. Hmmm. So, tax cuts for low, middle, and upper-middle income wage earners boosts the economy? But more “revenue” is needed to “keep rebuilding the economy and meet health care and other obligations to retiring baby boomers?” Why not just continue to allow Americans to keep more of their own money to give the economy a “boost” while working on ways for the federal government to exist on less revenue? How about exploring avenues to reduce the “obligations to retiring baby boomers” for example? As is typical from left-leaning publications, such logic was never broached. In fact, the words “spending,” “expenditures,” and “outlays” were nowhere to be found in this “real debate”: An honest debate needs to start with the numbers. The tax cut packages of 2001 and 2003 – heavily skewed to high earners – cut taxes by $1.65 trillion. In 2001, supporters argued that with the budget in surplus, the cuts were affordable. In 2003, they argued that the cuts would spur investment and growth and pay for themselves.   How does one have an “honest debate” by completely misrepresenting who benefited from the Bush tax cuts? As NewsBusters reported on August 11, the liberal think tank the Brookings Institution has concluded that 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts would go to low, middle, and upper-middle income wage earners in the next ten years if they were extended. Only 18 percent goes to couples making over $250,000 a year and singles over $200,000. With this in mind, it is certainly not “honest” of the Times to depict the Bush tax cuts as “heavily skewed to higher earners.” In fact, it’s an out and out lie! But there’s more: Since 2002, the federal budget has been chronically short of revenue. According to calculations by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if the tax cuts of the Bush years had never been enacted, publicly held debt at the end of 2009 would have been about $5.2 trillion, or 37 percent of gross domestic product. Instead, it was $7.5 trillion, or 53 percent of G.D.P. (it now stands at 60 percent).   Don’t you love that phrase “short of revenue?” Let’s examine just how “short of revenue” our government has been since 2002. Total unified tax collections that year were $1.853 trillion with outlays of $2.011 trillion.  By 2007 just prior to the beginning of the recession, revenues grew to $2.568 trillion, a 39 percent jump in only five years. Does that sound “short of revenue” to you? After all, if spending during this period had only grown at the rate of inflation, we would have had a $250 billion surplus! Heck, spending could have increased by five percent per year during this period and we still would have had a balanced budget! Yet, according to the Times, the problem was that we were “short of revenue.” BUT, there was even more fun to come: Tax cuts for low-, middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers should be temporarily extended because those taxpayers tend to spend most of their income and the economy needs consumer spending. That would cost roughly $140 billion next year, but the spur to the economy is more important than the budgetary impact. Tax cuts for the rich can safely be allowed to expire because wealthy taxpayers tend to save rather than spend their tax savings. The revenue from letting these expire – nearly $40 billion next year – would be better spent on job-creating measures. Remember how the Times earlier said the Bush tax cuts were “heavily skewed to high earners?” If this were true, then how coming extending these cuts to low, middle, and upper-income taxpayers would cost roughly $140 billion next year while extending those for “the rich” would cost nearly $40 billion? Using the Times’ own numbers, these combined cuts would cost about $180 billion next year with only $40 billion – or 22 percent – going to “the rich!” Doesn’t that mean that 78 percent goes to low, middle, and upper-middle income taxpayers? So exactly how were the Bush tax cuts “heavily skewed to high earners?” Unfortunately, that’s a question the shills at the Times will likely never answer!

Read the original:
NYT: ‘More Americans – Not Just the Rich – Will Have to Pay More Taxes’

Jon Stewart Vulgarly Attacks GOP Concerns for Rising Taxes and Deficits

Comedian Jon Stewart on Wednesday joined the growing liberal chorus attacking Republicans for their concerns about rising taxes and exploding budget deficits. The only thing different about the “Daily Show” host’s approach was that he needed vulgarity to make his point. Potentially even worse, Stewart in his opening segment Wednesday actually used CNN’s Fareed Zakaria to support his view that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be a good thing for the nation. Ironically, that was the only thing remotely funny about this sketch (video follows with partial transcript and commentary, extreme vulgarity warning, see BMI’s coverage as well ): The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c Deductible Me www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party “Let’s begin tonight in D.C.,” Stewart said. “It’s our nation’s capital. For the last 18 or so months Barack Obama’s been the President and Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress. Purely by coincidence, that’s the exact same amount of time that Republicans have expressed a newfound concern for our nation’s financial stability.” To set-up this “Republicans are hypocrites skit,” Stewart played clips of Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich warning against the budget deficit. At that point, Stewart said, “The deficit wants to skullf–k your mother. It wants to eat your children after it shows your wife a level of physical passion you’ve never been able to provide.” But here was the real punchline: Stewart played a clip from the August 1 installment of CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” when the host of that show told his viewers that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would instantly shrink our nation’s deficit by 30 percent. After the clip ended, Stewart said Zakaria was right. That would have elicited uproarious laughter from a well-informed audience, for as NewsBusters reported shortly after Zakaria made this pathetic claim, nothing could be further from the truth. Supporting our view, the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl has research that indicates these tax cuts were just a drop in the bucket of the overall federal budget deficit, and the real culprit is the explosion in spending – not the trotted out liberal misnomer that these tax cuts are responsible. Riedl explains the budget surplus forecasted at the end of the Clinton presidency was set to shift to a $6.1 trillion deficit and that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts were responsible for a mere 14 percent of this shift. The true culprit: the liberal sacred cow of entitlement spending. “Instead of closing the long-term deficit by splitting the difference between tax hikes and spending cuts, lawmakers should address the source-rising entitlement costs,” Riedl wrote. Indeed. In fact, even if the tax cuts were extended, revenues are projected to rise above the historical average by 2017. Contrary to Zakaria and Stewart’s view, this leaves surging spending responsible for the entire increase in long-term deficits. Business & Media Institute adviser and Cato Institute fellow Daniel Mitchell agrees, and refuted Zakaria’s claim on his Aug. 4 podcast . “Our real problem isn’t that deficits are large,” he said. “It is that the government is far, far too big. That’s what we should focus on, so he’s looking at a symptom rather than the underlying disease and then if we have to look at the issue of federal spending and federal revenue – even under the Obama budget projections – while low now because of the economic downturn – are going to climb to their historical post-World War average. We do not have, in other words, a shortage of revenue in the United States or in Washington, D.C. We have too much government spending.” On top of this, as NewsBusters reported a few hours before Stewart made his foolish comments, a new study published by the liberal Brookings Institution found the savings associated with just letting the Bush tax cuts expire on upper-income wage earners – what President Obama is advocating – to be minimal when compared to the current deficit totals. But facts weren’t getting in the way of Stewart’s populist rant as he next asked a truly absurd question: “How exactly can you be for deficit reduction and extending tax cuts? How do those two diametrically opposed thoughts exist in the same Party platform?” Well, Jon, here’s how: the last time Republicans cut taxes while controlling spending in the mid-1990s, the nation produced budget surpluses for four straight years while adding 12 million jobs to non-farm payrolls. Alas, this is an inconvenient truth Stewart and his ilk have chosen to ignore for over ten years, and Wednesday was no exception as the “Daily Show” host then played a clip of Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) saying the following on “Meet the Press” Sunday: REP. MIKE PENCE (R-INDIANA): They talk about tax cuts the same way they talk about spending increases as though the government owned all of the money. They say, “Are they paid for?” Well, I think, I think deciding on a government spending increase is very different on whether or not we allow the American people to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars. Makes sense, right? After all, it is OUR money! Obviously not according to Stewart, for he not only seemed totally perplexed by Pence’s logic, he mocked it by asking, “So, you’re saying money the government gets is different than money the government spends?” Well YEAH, Jon! When the government is spending $1.5 trillion MORE than what it takes in, there is a difference! A HUGE difference! Clearly missing this indisputable fact, Stewart said the deficit’s opinion on this matter can be summed up with a clip from the movie “Goodfellas”: ACTOR RAY LIOTTA: Business is bad? F–k you, pay me! Oh, you had a fire? F–k you, pay me! Place got hit by lightning, huh? F–k you, pay me!” In reality, although he clearly didn’t know it, Stewart was making the conservative point about the current administration and Party in power: regardless of how the economy and the American citizens are doing financially, today’s government acts like a Mafioso thug demanding to be paid. Thank you, Jon – we couldn’t have said it any better.

View post:
Jon Stewart Vulgarly Attacks GOP Concerns for Rising Taxes and Deficits