Tag Archives: taxes

NYT Worries Rich Win Even If Bush Tax Cuts Expire Just For Them

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In today’s “It Took You Long Enough To Figure It Out” segment, the New York Times is seriously worried that if the only Bush tax cuts that expire in January are those for the wealthiest Americans, the rich still win. Not surprisingly, Jackie Calmes’ piece on Wednesday also referred to extending existing law as “tax cuts,” a neat little trick the Left employ to give the appearance new cuts are being discussed when in fact the only thing on the table is whether what’s on the books will continue to be so. But facts aren’t important in this debate. Scaring folks into believing rich people are taking money away from them is: Given the progressive nature of the federal income tax system, in which tax rates increase with income, even the richest households would continue to pay the four lower rates on up to the first $250,000 of their income, under the approach being pushed by Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress. What Calmes was doing here was explaining to most of the likely ill-informed Times readers – after all, they probably only get their “news” from this propagandist source! – that marginal tax rates go up with income and that higher wage earners pay at those same lower rates on their initial earnings that qualify. As such, they pay ten percent on earnings up to a defined amount, then fifteen percent up to another, then 25 percent, etc. As the President is proposing extending all of the Bush tax cuts except the ones on the two top brackets, those in these upper brackets would still benefit by the lower rates applied to the lower brackets: Taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have paid under rates in effect until 2001, according to the analysis, which was prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation at the request of the Democratic majority on the House Ways and Means Committee. That compares, however, with the roughly $100,000 average tax cut that households with more than $1 million in income would receive under current rates. Filers with taxable income of $500,000 to $1 million would still get on average a tax cut of $6,700 compared with pre-2001 rates, according to the data from the tax analysts. But that compares with roughly $17,500 if the top Bush tax rates were maintained. Of course, the other way of putting this is that if the President gets his way, those making over $1 million a year on average would see their taxes rise by $93,700; those making between $500,000 and $1 million on average would see their taxes increase by $10,800. Can’t you just hear all the cheering from the nicer neighborhoods in America? To give you an idea of how the far-left views this, the Huffington Post offered its readers the following headline and picture to get them to read Calmes’ piece: This is from a woman that believes income and taxes have nothing to do with a business owner’s decision to hire more employees. So, what do you expect?  On the other hand, if the “rich” benefit from cuts in those lower brackets, doesn’t that mean the Bush tax cuts weren’t just for the rich and that lower-income folks benefited from them, too? As always, this ironically inconvenient truth was lost on Calmes just as it is Obama, the Democrats, and a media that have been misrepresenting this from the day it was first proposed.  Think about it: if these cuts really were just for the rich when they were implemented in 2003, why bother keeping any of them now? If the poor and middle class are going to benefit from them being extended, doesn’t that mean they benefited when these cuts were first implemented, and that these weren’t just tax cuts for the rich? Of course, if the Times and its colleagues were honest about this in 2003, maybe Americans would have a far different view of the Bush tax cuts – but that would be too much like journalism for these shills. 

Continue reading here:
NYT Worries Rich Win Even If Bush Tax Cuts Expire Just For Them

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Ground Zero Mosque on Greg Gutfeld’s Plan for Gay Islamic Bar: Respect ‘Sensibilities of Muslims’

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

As we noted in this morning’s Open Thread , Greg Gutfeld is planning on building the first gay bar catered to Muslim men next to the impending “Ground Zero Mosque.” Gutfeld wrote at his blog , the Daily Gut, that he has “already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.” On Twitter today, Gutfeld and the official twitterers of the Park51 project – the official name of the mosque – duked it out in what was a very telling exchange. See a full graphic of the back and forth below the fold, courtesy of Johnny Dollar  (pic at right by way of Jim Treacher ). “He’s got a point,” notes Allahpundit in reference to Park51’s tweet concerning “Muslim sensibilities.” “Construction projects that fail to consider local cultural sensitivities aren’t very conducive to dialogue, are they?” Indeed, the entire exchange seemed to strengthen Gutfeld’s position. He shouldn’t offend Muslim’s sensibilities? Well what about New Yorkers’ sensibilities? How is Park51’s total disregard for those sensibilities any more constructive in building a dialogue than Gutfeld’s? Outrage over Gutfeld’s move only reinforces the point his project is making (whether or not he intends it): yes, everyone has a right to build wherever they like, as long as they do it legally, but that “sensibilities” are a two-way street. Since Park51 has apparently taken a stance against Gutfeld’s bar, will media liberals condemn the mosque’s proprietors as homophobes the same way they condemned mosque opponents has Islamophobes? Individuals who opposed the mosque’s construction have been dubbed ” bellicose ,” ” xenophobic ,” ” Nazis ,” and ” intolerant know-nothings ,” while the mosque itself has been labeled a ” monument to religious tolerance .” The Twitter exchange today demonstrated the double standard espoused by the mosque’s proprietors. Will the media personalities who so vilified the mosque’s opponents endorse that same double standard? Or will they defend Gutfeld’s attempt to promote a dialogue about the treatment of homosexuals in most Muslim nations and communities, even if it means offending a few people?

Visit link:
Ground Zero Mosque on Greg Gutfeld’s Plan for Gay Islamic Bar: Respect ‘Sensibilities of Muslims’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Foreign Golfers May Not Play in Ryder Cup Due to UK Taxes

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Those who don’t believe that high taxes on the rich don’t influence economic activity or economic behavior, which of course includes many in the establishment press, are going to have a tough time explaining away this brief item that’s being reported in the Associated Press: Tour officials hampered by UK tax rules European Tour officials are in talks with the British government over tax rules which they say could deter leading golfers from playing in the Ryder Cup in October. Players competing in the match between Europe and the United States at Celtic Manor, Wales, could be seriously affected by new rules issued by the customs and revenue agency, which can now tax foreign sportsmen and women not just on prize money earned but on sponsorship and endorsements. Mitchell Platts, the European Tour’s director of public relations corporate affairs, said Tuesday the tax rule was “seriously hampering our efforts.” This is pretty obviously double taxation of the same income in both the home country and the UK.  If they don’t fix this by the London 2012 Olympics , there may be an unplanned return to what used to be known as the amateur ideal, as many of the world’s Olympic-level athletes, particularly in sports like basketball and tennis, may decide to take a pass. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Continued here:
Foreign Golfers May Not Play in Ryder Cup Due to UK Taxes

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Paul Ryan Strikes Back at ‘Intellectually Lazy’ Paul Krugman

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has struck back at Paul Krugman calling the New York Times columnist “intellectually lazy.” As NewsBusters reported Saturday, Krugman wrote an article the previous day castigating Ryan as ” The Flimflam Man ” calling the Congressman a “charlatan” and a “fraud” while claiming his “Roadmap” to balance the nation’s budget was “drenched in flimflam sauce.” Krugman’s criticisms of the Republican rising star were of course praised by all manner of media member from the shills at MSNBC to the sycophants in the liberal blogosphere. Since then, Ryan has responded and responded well, first at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Saturday: The assertion by Krugman and others that the revenue assumptions in the “Roadmap” are overly optimistic and that my staff directed the Congressional Budget Office not to analyze the tax elements of the “Roadmap” is a deliberate attempt to misinform and mislead. I asked the CBO to analyze the long-term revenue impact of the “Roadmap,” but officials declined to do so because revenue estimates are the jurisdiction of the Joint Tax Committee. The Joint Tax Committee does not produce revenue estimates beyond the 10-year window, and so I worked with Treasury Department tax officials in setting the tax reform rates to keep revenues consistent with their historical average. What critics such as Krugman fail to understand is that our looming debt crisis is driven by the explosive growth of government spending – not from a lack of tax revenue. Krugman also recycles the disingenuous claim that the “Roadmap” – the only proposal certified to make our entitlement programs solvent – would “end Medicare as we know it.” Ironically, doing nothing, as Democrats would prefer, is certain to end entitlement programs as we know them, and in the process, beneficiaries would face painful cuts to these programs. Conversely, the “Roadmap” would pre-empt these cuts in a way that prevents unnecessary disruptions for current beneficiaries. It reforms Medicare and Social Security so those in and near retirement (55 and older) will see no change in their benefits while preserving these programs for future generations of Americans. As Ryan noted, his recommendations are hardly as extreme as liberal shills like Krugman claim: Far from the “radical” label that critics have tried to pin on it, the Medicare reforms in the “Roadmap” are based on suggestions made by the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, chaired by Sen. John Breaux (D-La.). That commission recommended in 1999 “modeling a system on the one members of Congress use to obtain health care coverage for themselves and their families.” With respect to Medicare and Social Security, the “Roadmap” puts in place systems similar to those members of Congress have. There has been support across the political spectrum for these types of reforms. By dismissing credible proposals as “flimflam,” critics such as Krugman contribute nothing to the debate. Standing on the sidelines shouting “boo” amounts to condemning our people to a future of managed decline. Absent serious reform, spending on entitlement programs and interest on government debt will consume more and more of the federal budget, resulting in falling standards of living and higher taxes as we try to sustain an ever larger social welfare state. The American people deserve a serious and civil discussion about how to reduce our exploding debt and deficit. By relying on ad-hominem attacks and discredited claims, Krugman and others are missing an opportunity to contribute to this discussion and are only polarizing and paralyzing attempts to solve our nation’s fiscal problems. On Sunday, Krugman replied at his Times blog: As I predicted , a snow storm of words, dodging the math questions. Notice that Ryan does not address the issue of the zero nominal growth assumption, and how that assumption – not entitlement reforms – is the key to his alleged spending cuts by 2020. By the way, if you look at the artful way his excuses are constructed – giving the false impression that he couldn’t get a revenue score for love nor money – how is that not flimflam? On Monday, Ryan spoke with The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack to further clarify the situation: “I realize he’s a columnist and not a journalist, yet he could have easily tried to have verified his claims with a phone call or an email,” Ryan said of Krugman. “Instead he went with his confusion and chose to impugn motives,” said Ryan, “which strikes me as a very intellectually lazy exercise or style.” Krugman wrote on his blog on Saturday that “Ryan could have gotten JCT to do a 10-year estimate; it just wouldn’t go beyond that. And he chose not to get that 10-year estimate.” Ryan says that’s not true. “We asked Joint Tax to do it,” Ryan told me. “They said they couldn’t. They don’t do them long-term outside the 10 year window. They couldn’t do it in the first 10 years because of just how busy they were.” Ryan says Krugman could have cleared this confusion up with a simple phone call. “Megan McArdle figured it out on her own,” Ryan said, referring to a blog post by The Atlantic ‘s business and economics editor.  Clearing up confusion is never Krugman’s modus operandi, as he’s made a living misinforming the public on such issues. But Ryan wasn’t done: Ryan also responded to Krugman’s criticism that his domestic discretionary spending freeze is impractical and doesn’t spell out exactly which programs would be cut. “Domestic discretionary spending went up 84 percent last year,” said Ryan. “There has been such a gusher of domestic discretionary spending that I think we can live with a freeze for a long time to come.” The point of a spending freeze, said Ryan, is to put “strong enforceable controls in place and then make the experts, whether it be the appropriators or the agencies, come up with a way to live within their means.” Ryan marvelously concluded: “The Roadmap is designed to maintain a limited government in the 21st century, and it is the antithesis of the progressivist vision which [Krugman] subscribes to. That’s fine. I understand it violates his vision for a progressivist society,” Ryan continued. “What I think is rather bizarre is his strange personal attack and ad hominem attacks based upon his confusion surrounding the scoring process, which could have been easily clarified with a simple phone call or email.” “I’m not going to descend into the mudpit with Krugman on this stuff,” Ryan said. “I want to stay on policy and ideas.” Actually, mudpit would be an uptick considering the nether regions folks like Krugman propagandize from, for his attacks on Ryan were typically devoid of facts. As NewsBusters reported Saturday, the primary statistical source for Krugman’s “Flimflam” piece, the liberal Tax Policy Center, quickly corrected the record on Friday surprisingly defending Ryan. But Krugman isn’t concerned with that. As Hot Air’s Allahpundit noted Tuesday, the Times columnist is part of an orchestrated strategy by the Left to attack all on the Right that are gaining traction with the American people: It’s the same reason why Chris Matthews went to such pains to make Ryan look unserious and why the DNC is now lumping him in with candidates like Sharron Angle in an attempt to make him seem kooky . According to the Narrative, today’s conservatives are a horde of feral, brainless bigots following whatever primitive impulses their political id generates. Ryan, being both soft-spoken and very intellectually serious about the unsustainability of entitlements, is both a threat to that narrative and to the welfare state itself. As such, frankly, he’s lucky he’s gotten off as easy as he has thus far. Potentially, he’s progressive public enemy number one.  Indeed. What also makes Ryan so dangerous to folks like Krugman is that he represents a new breed of young, extremely intelligent, and attractive conservatives that could very well be presidential material in the future. As such, the liberal attack machine in the media feels it’s necessary to bash him whenever possible and without any concern for the facts. As the fabulous David Byrne sang decades ago, “Same as it ever was.” 

See the article here:
Paul Ryan Strikes Back at ‘Intellectually Lazy’ Paul Krugman

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Seattle P-I Blogger: Are You ‘Jealous’ That Portland Might Ban Plastic Bags?

Posted on July 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In August 2009, much to the chagrin of leftist environmental activists, the generally liberal electorate of the city of Seattle rejected a 20-cent tax on plastic shopping bags. In fact, 58 percent of voters voted to reject the proposal, although the Seattle Post-Intelligencer sought to portray the vote as the result of the plastic industry plunking down $1.4 million in advertising opposing the ban. “Environmental interests, by comparison, only raised about $80,000,” the P-I lamented . Now nearly a year later, the P-I’s Amy Rolph seems to think Seattle residents may be “jealous” that Portland, Oregon politicians are looking towards an outright ban of the dreaded plastic scourge!: Portland’s mayor said Wednesday that he plans to ban plastic bags, a move that might make some Seattle activists tinge green with envy. They might wonder: How come they get to do it, and we don’t? Rolph then recycled the old liberal complaints about how the bag tax proposal went down in flames, namely that big bad business influenced the outcome with its deep pockets: Well, not so fast, bag haters. Portland Mayor Sam Adams might be biting off more than he can chew, given what happened here in Seattle. Seattle voters turned down a similar proposal in August of last year. But that measure wasn’t an outright ban; it would have imposed a 20-cent fee on paper and plastic bags at grocery stores. Lobbyists for the plastic industry spent about $1.4 million in an effort to crush the measure here in Seattle. Rolph and her colleagues at the P-I just can’t bring themselves to believe that Seattle voters just didn’t like the idea of silly nickle-and-dime tax hike schemes and/or nanny state “solutions” to such grave threats to Western civilization such as plastic grocery bags.

Read the original here:
Seattle P-I Blogger: Are You ‘Jealous’ That Portland Might Ban Plastic Bags?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

AP: How Dare Steinbrenner Die in 2010

Posted on July 14, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

How do you honor a man who built a $1.3 billion baseball dynasty and revived one of the most iconic American sports franchises? If you’re the Associated Press, you whine that he avoided the estate tax. In a July 14 article , the Associated Press bemoaned that Steinbrenner died in a year with a “quirky tax situation” due to the suspended estate tax. The AP complained that the estate tax suspension “deprives the government of billions of dollars in tax revenue” yet gives the deceased heirs “an unexpected bonanza for those who inherit wealth:” Attorney and estate planner Jack Nuckolls told the AP that, “If you’re super-wealth, it’s a good year to die. It really is.” The AP tactfully noted that if Steinbrenner had not so selfishly waited to pass away, and instead died in 2009, he would have paid half a billion dollars in taxes. “Forbes magazine has estimated Steinbrenner’s estate at $1.1 billion. The federal estate tax in 2009 was 45 percent, with the $3.5 million per-person exemption. If he had died last year, his estate could thus have faced federal taxes of almost $500 million, depending on how the estate was structured.” This is the second time this summer the media have been frustrated by a wealthy person “dying in a good year” and avoiding the estate tax. The media frequently advocate higher taxes on the wealthy but usually wait more than a day after they’ve died to publicly envy their success.

Read the original:
AP: How Dare Steinbrenner Die in 2010

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Tax Cut All-Star — CNBC’s Trish Regan: Calls It ‘Inherently Un-American’ to Penalize Prosperity

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Throughout the last half-century, time and time again, a means to stimulate an ailing economy has occurred through tax cuts. Former Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have proven economic relief is most effective through tax cuts – not government spending.  Still that method has detractors. However, CNBC “The Call” co-anchor Trish Regan, with a panel decidedly against her, made the case for tax cuts. On NBC’s July 11 broadcast of “The Chris Matthews Show,” Regan explained how tax cuts encourage businesses to help reverse the trend of high unemployment and that businessmen are worried about the end of the Bush tax cuts. “They absolutely are,” Regan said. “They’re concerned about it and this is one of the issues when it comes to hiring. They’re hesitant right now when it comes to bringing more employees on board because one, you’re not seeing final demand because consumers aren’t spending that much, and number two, they’re dealing with the tax consequences of having more people in their companies. So that’s definitely an issue.” Matthews followed up Regan’s response with a question to Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page. He asked would if “Democratic progressives” would be open to the idea of tax cuts, if it meant rescuing the economy and solidifying President Barack Obama’s chances for re-election in 2012. “Well, only if it hit those at the bottom,” Page said. “You should expand the earned income tax credit or give some kind of a job incentive. But I disagree that he ought to call off, well continue the Bush tax cut. That’s not going to win Democrat support.” However, as the Congressional Budget Office shows , upper-income taxpayers pay more than their fair share of taxes, over six times as much in terms of a percentage of household income overall. And Regan as explained, penalization through taxation is “inherently un-American” because it discourages aspiration. “Isn’t there something kind of inherently un-American about the more money you make, the more money we’re going to take from you?” Regan said. “I mean, even if you’re not making $250,000 a year as a couple, you may aspire to make that. The government’s going to take more.” Probably at this point, Matthews may have been wondering how someone with these views wound up booked on his shows. Regan’s remarks drew laughter and protest from “The Chris Matthews Show” panel. Nonetheless, Time magazine’s Joe Klein offered up his pro-taxation view – suggesting all conservatives want to abolish the income tax, which he deemed as “radical.” “It’s called the progressive income tax for a reason,” Klein said. “Now conservatives want to abolish the income tax. That is so radical.” But Regan fought back, explaining taxation discourages productivity which is essential to economic growth. “What I’m saying is, you don’t want to necessarily discourage productivity,” she said. “You want the country to grow and there are ways to do that through tax cuts whether it be through individuals or to businesses.” Klein attempted to use former President Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike as evidence higher taxes don’t necessarily discourage economic growth. And although there is significant evidence to dispute Klein’s point , Regan explained the economy was in a different place then as it is now. “He did it at a time when the economy was growing,” she said. “We’re in a very different situation right now.” Take away: Good thing Regan is anchoring a CNBC show and Klein is writing a column for a magazine with a dwindling circulation.

View post:
Tax Cut All-Star — CNBC’s Trish Regan: Calls It ‘Inherently Un-American’ to Penalize Prosperity

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Maddow: Extending Unemployment Benefits ‘Most Stimulative Thing You Can Do’

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Channeling her inner Nancy Pelosi, Rachel Maddow on Sunday actually said extending unemployment benefits is “the most stimulative thing you can do” to help the ailing economy. Appearing on the panel discussion of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Maddow boldly presented a liberal view of economics that only the current House Speaker would be proud of. “I think that most Americans also, though, understand the basic arithmetic that when you’re talking about pushing tax cuts that do mostly benefit the wealthy and you’re simultaneously talking about getting tough on the deficit, you’re talking about a world in which math doesn’t work the way most people think it works.” Indeed, for moments before she falsely stated that Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. But Maddow’s best remark Sunday had to be, “If you really want a stimulus, do what we — what’s proven to work in stimulus, which is things like extending unemployment benefits…It’s the most stimulative thing you can do” (video follows with transcript and commentary): RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Well, you end, you end up with the situation which again you’re back to choice vs. referendum because Republicans, like great strategists like Mr. Gillespie, can argue about how it’s all about spending, it’s all about debt. But it’s not just talking about the past to say, “When Republicans have had the reins, this is what they’ve done: two wars not paid for, prescription drug benefit not paid for, two tax cuts that mostly benefited the rich not paid for.” They put all that stuff on the deficit, $1.3 trillion sitting there as–in a deficit when Obama took over, after the previous Democratic president had handed him a surplus. If you talk about–if Republicans want to run as this fiscally responsible party, it’s neat, but it’s novel. It’s not how they’ve actually governed. DAVID GREGORY, HOST: And, David, you know, more on that argument, though. I spoke to senior Republicans this week in the party who said, “Look, sometimes we are afraid that we do take the majority back because are we, as Republicans, in a position to offer a policy for how to grow the economy, to offer real policies to create jobs?” There’s a lot of fear out there that, in fact, they don’t have great alternatives at the moment to be able to do that. DAVID BROOKS, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, I, I actually agree with that. I’m a little scared myself. You know, you look at what happened in Britain, the Conservative party took over after a long period out of power. They, they have a real austerity program. They’re really cutting spending, putting the country, which was much worse debt shape than us, on a long-term path to some sort of fiscal sanity. I’m not sure the Republicans are ready there, so I’m a little nervous about that. But the question people are going to ask us is, “What did President Obama offer, and are we satisfied with that?” And they’re not getting there. And to me the big picture is that if Harry Hopkins, the great liberal from FDR’s administration, came back and said, “I’m going to create a perfect liberal moment. We’re going to have a big financial crisis caused by Wall Street, sort of; we’re going to have the biggest natural disaster in American history caused by an oil company; we’re going to have a very talented Democratic president; we’re going to give him some money to spend to create a lot of programs.” And after all that, it’s still not a liberal moment, it’s a conservative moment, that makes me think liberalism isn’t quite going to sell in this country at any moment. If it’s not selling now, it’ll never sell. And I think… MR. GREGORY: But doesn’t that assume that this is a conservative moment? Do you assume that? ED GILLESPIE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Oh, I think, I think there’s a great opportunity for conservative policies, and I think the public is open to hearing from us on that. And I just disagree with David. Look, in New Jersey and Virginia, we have two Republican governors just been elected, one in a purple state, Virginia, one in a deep blue state, or at least royal blue, New Jersey, who are acting on what they said they would do, they’re governing as they campaigned. In New Jersey, Governor Christie is trying to change the tailspin, turn things around in New Jersey, taking on the government employee unions there. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell as governor eliminated a $4.2 billion deficit, the largest in the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We will govern as we said we would. And I think, you know, Harold just pointed to these rising capital gains taxes and dividend taxes. You can call them tax increases on the, on the wealthy. I think most will say it’s tax increases on investment at a time when we need to be creating jobs. They’re going to kick in January 1, 2011. The first thing Republicans will do is say, “No. We’re going to keep them in place for a while until we can get the economy growing again.” And I think most Americans reject the notion that spending equals jobs. They think spending equals temporary government jobs. MS. MADDOW: I think that, I think that most Americans also, though, understand the basic arithmetic that when you’re talking about pushing tax cuts that do mostly benefit the wealthy and you’re simultaneously talking about getting tough on the deficit, you’re talking about a world in which math doesn’t work the way most people think it works. If you’re going to talk about tax cuts–I mean, Harold, you, as a Democrat, proposed some very significant tax cuts when you were thinking about running for Senate in, in New York, a huge corporate tax cut, a big payroll tax holiday, and then said simultaneously, “And we got to get serious about the deficit.” HAROLD FORD, FORMER DEMOCRAT REPRESENTATIVE FROM TENNESSEE: Well, Rachel, in all fairness, the payroll tax… MS. MADDOW: Tax cuts hurt the deficit. REP. FORD: Right. But the payroll tax cut–in order to, in order to pay down the debt, you got to do two things. You got to get your spending in order and you got to grow. When Bill Clinton was in office, the real advantage we had was that the economy grew. They made–they took–they made some tough choices around spending. I was in Congress for a good part of that. But at the same time, we had this IT explosion and growth in the country, which created millions of jobs. My only point is, if you cut the payroll tax for small businesses, you keep money in those communities. If you really want a stimulus, cut the payroll tax at a hardware store, cut the payroll tax at a sundry, cut the payroll tax at a… MS. MADDOW: If you really want, if you really want a stimulus, do what we–what’s proven to work in stimulus, which is things like extending unemployment benefits, which is something that Republicans are completely blocking. REP. FORD: Which I… MR. GREGORY: But let me, let me… MS. MADDOW: It’s the most stimulative thing you can do. Yep. She really reiterated one of the most inane statements ever uttered by a House Speaker in American history: Does Maddow actually BELIEVE that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, or was she just mimicking Pelosi and repeating Democrat talking points? Before you answer, consider the absurdity in her other comment concerning Obama inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit.  After all, on March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying “Yes.” When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it. This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with “Yeas” coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton. As such, when Maddow says, “They put all that stuff on the deficit, $1.3 trillion sitting there as — in a deficit when Obama took over,” the “They” were Democrats INCLUDING Obama.   How is this possibly something he inherited when his Party ramrodded the original budget through Congress with virtually no Republican approval — save Bush’s signature, of course — and the highest members of the current Administration — including the president himself!!! — supported it when they were either in the Senate or the House? Sadly, Maddow’s math doesn’t incorporate this inconvenient truth. But that’s just the beginning, for on October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy. Couldn’t Obama only disavow responsibility for this if he had voted no along with the other 25 Senators disapproving the measure? And what about the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009 with just three Republican votes? Wouldn’t Obama only be blameless if he vetoed it and was later overridden? Of course, he didn’t, and, instead signed it into law on February 17. Nor did he veto the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later. Add it all up, and Obama approved every penny spent in fiscal 2009 either via his votes in the Senate or his signature as President. That Maddow has the gall on national television to blame this on Republicans is the height of hypocrisy. But what are you going to expect from a woman that believes unemployment benefits stimulate the economy? 

Continue reading here:
Maddow: Extending Unemployment Benefits ‘Most Stimulative Thing You Can Do’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

George Will: Obama Is An Expert At Selling Snake Oil

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

George Will on Sunday accused Barack Obama of being an expert at selling snake oil. As the Roundtable segment of ABC’s “This Week” began, host Jake Tapper asked Will if the President’s claim that Republicans “are peddling that same snake oil that they’ve been peddling now for years” will resonate with voters this November. Will marvelously responded, “No, because he is an expert on snake oil.” “This is the man who said, if we pass the $767 billion stimulus bill, which it turns out costs $862 billion, a $95 million oops, we would have unemployment at 8 percent and no higher, and it went higher,” continued Will. “This is the man who last week was out saying, ‘I’m going to give $2 billion, about $2 billion, to two companies to create about 1,600 jobs.’ That’s $1.5 million per job. That is snake oil” (video follows with partial transcript and commentary:  JAKE TAPPER, HOST: I want to start with President Obama out on the campaign trail again this week trying to sharpen his message. Here’s a glimpse. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: They’re not coming back and saying, “You know what? We really screwed up, but we’ve learned our lesson, and now we’ve got this new approach, and this is how things are going to turn out really well.” That’s not their argument. They are trying to sell you the same stuff that they’ve been peddling. They are peddling that same snake oil that they’ve been peddling now for years. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: So the president, George, is trying to make this not a referendum on him, but rather a choice between him and Republicans. Is it going to work? WILL: No, because he is an expert on snake oil. This is the man who said, if we pass the $767 billion stimulus bill, which it turns out costs $862 billion, a $95 million oops, we would have unemployment at 8 percent and no higher, and it went higher. This is the man who, in another form of snake oil, said we have this wonderful idea of homeowner tax credits for buying first-time homeowners, which we now realize has largely subsidized home purchases that would have been made anyway. This is the man who last week was out saying, “I’m going to give $2 billion, about $2 billion, to two companies to create about 1,600 jobs.” That’s $1.5 million per job. That is snake oil. A bit later, Tapper asked the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, “Is the president doing the right thing here? Is this — is this the effective message to help at least lower the losses in November? Marcus surprisingly responded: Well, that presumes there’s any effective message. And the president says, look, these guys drove the car into the ditch. Why would you give the keys back to them? The only problem with that is, who’s been driving the car for the last 18 months and where are we? Quite shocking to hear that from the Obama-loving Marcus, wouldn’t you agree? 

Visit link:
George Will: Obama Is An Expert At Selling Snake Oil

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Conservative Talk Show Hosts are Uneducated

Posted on July 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Friday’s Rick’s List, CNN’s Rick Sanchez attacked conservative economic policy, singling out the right’s support for lower tax rates, and complained that ” we in America are so easily led to go against our own interests …. you would find that at least half…[are] pulling for the rich guy.” Sanchez also belittled conservative talk show hosts: ” Many…don’t even have a college degree .” The anchor led the 3 pm Eastern hour with a rant against ” these guys on talk radio, some of whom make hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars ” and their defense of “the money guys…the super-rich, night in and night out- you know who I’m talking about- you will hear this and you have heard this consistent narrative. We’re being held back by high taxes in this country, high tax rates- cut taxes on the wealthy and, zoom, there it goes. Our economy is going to be back with a vengeance. Get the government off our backs and all our problems in this country are going to be solved.” Sanchez then caricatured the conservative take on the present economic situation and, unsurprising, introduced race into the issue. He also targeted CNBC personality and Tea Party hero Rick Santelli: SANCHEZ: And, by the way, the mess we’re still digging out from: it’s not Wall Street’s fault, not a thing to do with the government turning a blind eye to the high-rolling financial shenanigans of some people on Wall Street. No, not at all. It’s the poor people’s fault, who brought the rest of us to our knees, mostly, by the way- I know you hear this- I know you hear this- mostly minorities, them Hispanics and them blacks who bought the homes that they couldn’t afford. They defaulted on those loans, and then we all went down, by golly. Do you think I’m kidding about this? Look, here’s one of the biggest media darlings of this message . RICK SANTELLI (from MSNBC’s “Hardball”): Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages? SANCHEZ: This guy’s a superstar now. That’s right, superstar: ‘losers.’ Remember that? If you lose your job and you end up defaulting on your mortgage, you are a loser. That was the rant that fueled, in many ways, the Tea Party movement. Quit subsidizing the losers, America. How did the CNN anchor refute Santelli and “these guys on the radio”? He turned to the left-wing New York Times: SANCHEZ: Now, let me show you something else. I want to show you- hey, Rob, are you good there. Where’s the newspaper? I want to bring you in the newspaper that I had here just a moment ago. Here it is. Here’s The New York Times. All right? What’s that say? Can you see it? Biggest defaulters on mortgages are the rich. So, who are the losers? Hispanics? Minorities? Black people who bought more home than they could really afford? Once again, let’s look at this. The biggest defaulters on mortgages are the rich…more than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of $1 million are seriously delinquent, okay? Now, let’s look at the rest of us, people like you and me. About one in 12 mortgages below the $1 million mark is delinquent. Who are the losers again? Who are the losers again, Mr. Santelli, or whatever your name is? Okay, the article goes on to say, though it’s hard to prove, the data suggests that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially-draining properties. They’re doing this on purpose. You know what? I don’t want it. I will dump it, just as they would any other sour investment. Fine, but let’s be clear. The rich aren’t paying their mortgages, and at a higher rate than anyone else. Sanchez then set up a straw man of the conservative position on taxes: SANCHEZ: I want to make a point about taxes now. To hear the narrative out there, you would think that we’re the highest taxed nation on the planet, in the history of the planet. You hear it every day on your way home. Just turn on your radio, folks. In fact, there’s another list out there I want to show you, of the top 30 industrial nations in the world. Where do you think the United States ranks? Now, you hear every single day we’re the most taxed country in the world, no question about it. And it’s all these politicians and the government. And where do you think we are? Of all the developed countries in the world, where do you think we are, as far as the tax rate? Where do you think we are? Twenty-sixth- twenty-sixth out of thirty. That’s according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development- twenty-sixth out of thirty. Again, here’s the list. Here’s my highlight marks that I have put right there. You see it.  We are right after- here, I’ll tell you. Who comes before us? Switzerland, Mexico and Australia. Who comes after us? Ireland, Luxembourg, Iceland, and New Zealand. After mouthing the left’s consistent talking point that “the rich have gotten…richer, the poor…poorer,” the anchor brought on Georgia Tech Professor Danny Boston, who agreed that the New York Times statistic “debunks the stereotype” on the economy. Later, Sanchez returned to his tax straw man and bemoaned how so many people hold the economic conservative position: SANCHEZ: We hear we’re the most taxed country in the world. That seems to show that maybe we really aren’t. We’re 26th of the 30 developing [sic] nations. We hear that it was the poor people who bought too many homes that they couldn’t afford. Now, we’ve got a statistic saying, no, that’s not true. In fact, it’s the rich who have been the most delinquent and defaulted on their mortgages. It’s like statistic after statistic seems to- why is it that we in America are so easily led to go against our own interests? Because- and you know what I mean by that. Most of the people who are super rich in this country are- what, 1 percent? Then there’s 99 percent of the rest of us, and yet, if you look at studies politically and sociologically, you would find that at least half of that 99 percent is pulling for the rich guy , and saying- oh, yes, it’s not his fault, it’s our fault. Near the end of the segment, the CNN anchor took a conservative talking point against President Obama and applied it to Professor Boston, as a set up to launch his attack on conservative talk show hosts: SANCHEZ: Well- you know, a lot of the folks who would criticize someone like you- they would criticize you, first of all, because you’re a college professor, which, in their mind, makes you overeducated, and thus, stupid. But is that something that’s frustrating as well, that you know this stuff and can explain it as easily as you just did to us, but yet, t he people who are really leading the charge in this country are the guys on the radio and- many of which don’t even have a college degree . Well, Mr. Sanchez, as you demonstrated yourself, you can have a college degree and still make mistakes about basic geography, such as when you misidentified the Galapagos Islands as Hawaii during CNN’s live coverage of the February 27, 2010 earthquake in Chile.

More here:
CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Conservative Talk Show Hosts are Uneducated

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,