Protests were held across the country yesterday to pay tribute to the legacy of Martin Luther King and to push back against attacks on workers’ rights. Alex Seitz-Wald at Think Progress provides this take on one DC rally:
In Washington, DC, today, an estimated 2,000 protesters marched on Koch Industries’ Washington, DC, offices, and attempted to give Charles and David Koch an invitation to come out and speak with the protesters. Not surprisingly, the building’s doors were locked, and no one was allowed inside. However, a representative from the real estate company which managed the building told an handful of organizers who attempted to deliver the invitation, “I’d be here with you guys if I wasn’t working right now.” Noting that he works for the building, not Koch, he said, “I don’t want to be here.”
And the media?
Last Thursday, Tea Party activists rallied on Capitol Hill to pressure Republican lawmakers to cut government spending. Crowd estimates ranged from “dozens” to “fewer than 200,” yet the event attracted dozens of reporters and significant media interest, producing hundreds of stories in local and national press. At today’s rally, which was 10 times bigger than the Tea Party one, Think Progress spotted three reporters—none from mainstream publications.
To corporate media outlets, nothing says “news” quite like a lightly attended Tea Party rally.
And of course it wasn’t just DC, but cities around the country where significant protests garnered insignificant news coverage.
Yeah–but when Glenn Beck and other right-wingers claim the mantle of MLK, the “liberal” media salivate! People who connect the civil rights movement to something other than a single line in a speech–like human rights, economic justice, etc.–are routinely ignored by big media.
Goes to show you that the ones who holler the loudest get the media coverage, even when they are spouting nothing but rubbish, which is mostly what comes out of the mouths of anyone associated with the Tea Party.
Jeez, guys, this site REALLY needs a Shareaholic widget. It’s just not that tough, and it’s ever so 21st century.
@William Turner: seconded. Make it easy to link this stuff on Facebook, Twitter, et al.
These days, Republican/Conservative’s treason against the citizens of America is big business. And big business means big news. The fact that blatantly treasonous ideologies and actions against the public from the right wing are becoming more and more accepted among those of immaculately lesser intelligence shows that a true Democracy is something America will never have as long as the ridiculously biased and inefficient psuedo two-party system we have in place is allowed to continue. And we really have no one to blame but the Republican citizens who are without the intelligence and critical thinking skills to recognize the fact that what they want is completely against what they claim they and the country are supposed to stand for. Imposing their ridiculous unconstitutional religion-based laws on the people, eroding the freedom of anyone who opposes their fascist theocratic agendas and punishing citizens for knowing better than they do are all things that this country used to oppose and actually prosecute and execute the purpotrators of. One can only pray that those with sound minds and judgement will overturn any decision these lowlifes impose on us. Because if not, there will be bloodshed on both sides of the spectrum. And the one’s who will be justified in the violence will not be the ones who have destroyed our country, brought the economy to its knees and placed invisible shackles on the lower classes. The top 1% have as much money as the bottom 99% combined. This is where the battle must begin, and where the call to arms must be met.
Wow Dead sky you honestly don’t have a clue what the conservative movement is all about.Same with Randy.Do you honestly believe that rhetoric?I have a feeling come Novembers hence- you are going to be unhappy men. But dead skys Dont be promising bloodshed.There will be none of that.”We” on the right survived Obama(barely).We understand elections have consequences.And the downturn since Obama took office is our lot.We accept it.We await our turn at the election box.We speak openly about the insanity now reigning.We do not take up arms,No-one has undertaken to overthrow or assassinate anyone.We change hearts and minds with freedom of speech and soon at the ballot.Spout your ideology.No one is stopping you.You can have the soapbox right next to mine with the tea party logo.I will even buy you a slice of American apple pie.But when the parodox shifts you are just gonna have to suck it up ,and stand back and see if we can do the better job we promise.3 words…….LIVE WITH IT.We have.
Michael E.: Don’t be so sure we will “LIVE WITH IT.”
In the words of Irish patriot Padraig Pearse, speaking at the graveside services for Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa: “Beware…beware of the thing that is coming.”
michael e “And the downturn since Obama took office is our lot” I believe that when a country is shedding 3/4 a million jobs a month this is a downturn and when it starts adding jobs which happened after Obama took office this is an upturn. Elections do have consequences and the GOP campaigned on creating jobs, “JOBS JOBS JOBS” so since winning the House and not one word on creating jobs the American People will replace the bums they voted in. See you in November 2012!!!
michael e “And the downturn since Obama took office is our lot”
Uh, both job creation and GDP growth has gone up since Obama took office.
GDP chart here
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TUSiPNzq1eI/AAAAAAAAO38/B_WRD1AZ3zc/s1600/gdp2.jpg
michael e “And the downturn since Obama took office is our lot”
Wall Street Journal 1/29/2011
Gross domestic productâ┚¬”Âa broad measure of all goods and services producedâ┚¬”Âgrew at a 3.2% annual rate in the fourth quarter, the government said Friday. That’s up from the 2.6% pace notched the quarter before and confirms the view held by many economists and stock-market investors that the economy is gaining enough momentum to start bringing down unemployment in the months ahead.
The expansion in large part was fueled by a jump in consumer spendingâ┚¬”Âa crucial change from earlier in the recovery, when growth relied heavily on businesses investing and building up inventories.
Final salesâ┚¬”Âa measure that gives a feeling for underlying demand in the economy by subtracting the change in business inventories from GDPâ┚¬”Ânotched its biggest increase since 1984, growing 7.1% in the fourth quarter.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576109772560128768.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
Job Creation Chart
http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/JobsPrivateSector.jpg
Actually, the top one percent of Americans own 35.6 percent of the nation’s wealth, while 80 percent of Americans own only 12.8 percent. The other 19 percent – just below the top 1 percent – own the rest.
At the end of 2007, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Helen, you are the only one who can shush Michael e with facts. I think you might be winning his mind.
@Bilho [not Bill O aka falafal-man]
Thanks for the kind words….I fear that my facts won’t have that effect on the perpetually confused Michael, I post them for the rest of the FAIR regulars…….but a gal can dream….
Michael e “And the downturn since Obama took office is our lot”
What that downturn looks like–continued
NY Times 4/9/11
In the fourth quarter of 2010, profits at American businesses were up an astounding 29.2 percent, the fastest growth in more than 60 years. Collectively, American corporations logged profits at an annual rate of $1.678 trillion.
For the average C.E.O. the good times have returned. The median pay for top executives at 200 major companies was $9.6 million last year. That was a 12 percent increase over 2009, according to a study conducted for The New York Times by Equilar, a compensation consulting firm based in Redwood City, Calif.
Many if not most of the corporations run by these executives are doing better than they were in the downturn. Many businesses were hit so hard by the recession that even small improvements in sales and profits look good by comparison. But C.E.O. pay is also on the rise again at companies like Capital One and Goldman Sachs, which survived the economic storm with the help of all those taxpayer-financed bailouts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/business/10comp.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Helen….When I worked for Clinton and Nader one of my jobs was in essence to sift through endless(my word) facts to see what “adds up” before it moves upstairs.But facts at some point must be formulated into philosophy.I try not to simply throw facts here because there are always counter facts that show the opposite.You have to become better at seeing what “facts” matter…..and what facts are simply building blocks for weak argument.As I read “your facts”my mind explodes with the rediculousness of what you are preposing.You are digging for facts that say things are better today than they were 4 years ago.Or 8 years ago.Or 30 years ago.No one believes that.No one can be horse whipped into believing that.It is patently false.It is grabbing at straws.Here is one………My aunt Maggie made more money this year than 4 years ago.Put that in your express bag to goofy land.One fact you quoted is not a bi polar joke though.”Spending is up”.That is true and worrisome since people are not working or making more money.I would put it down to the fact that they believe run a way government cost has for now been stopped.So things wont get any better…but maybe not any worse.
Is it all Obamas fault?I would never say that.I will say he did not have a worthwhile idea going in, and has developed none alone the way.America struggles to slap him aside and surface.He drags it under again and again but still we rise.Today he will have the insanity roll from his tongue and say the words during this recession that shows he has learned nothing. MORE TAXES.Yes yes our government has proven to be such a good steward of our wealth…lets give em even more.Well actually he wont take any more from us because like GE he needs our vote right?.I hear he is going after that guy who lives over the hill.The guy nobody knows or likes.The guy who lives to hurt other people.That evil rich guy.Same shit different day.
P.s with all the good work Obama has done, and all the good facts you all have shown me on his stewardship of our energy needs I was thinking of dumping 50k in futures loaded toward foreseeing a downturn in gas prices 2 months again. Lukily I ran into a homeless man who told me you were cracked.Saved me 50 grand :)
Ps How in the hell did I forget raising the debt ceiling.I think they should ask Obam and all the Dem congressmen and Senators one question.They have 10 seconds to answer.If they get it wrong a horn sounds and the announcers voice says “oh sorry but you can’t raise the debt ceiling today,but we have some parting gifts like a free spinal tap”…..
Here is the question.How many zeros are there in 14 TRILLION?
Michael e hauls out another strawman. “You are digging for facts that say things are better today than they were 4 years ago.Or 8 years ago.Or 30 years ago.”
No, I’m not. I’m simply disproving your assertion that we have had a downturn since Obama was elected. Things aren’t better than they were four or eight years ago [or during the 90’s Clinton boom] because trickle-me Bu$hco crashed and we aren’t back out of that ditch yet. The economy Obama inherited was far worse than the one W inherited and quickly turned into America’s lost decade. It’s currently improving. I realize that your Obama derangement syndrome precludes you from seeing reality, but facts are facts.
Job creation and GDP growth HAVE gone up since Obama took office. The stock market, corporate profits and CEO pay are also ALL UP since Janurary 2009. Things are very rosey for the investor class. Unemployment is still too high but, in part, that’s because big companies are sitting on cash rather than hiring.
—————-
Another thing to consider, if you take the part of GDP growth [1.5 to 2 points] and job creation [43%] during the Bush “growth years” that are connected to the housing boom and folks using their home credit lines as an ATM, the entire five years were recession.
—————–
Another reason gas prices are going up….the economy’s improvement.
—————
The Wall Street Journal wrote than consumer spending is up. [Consumer savings are also up.] That indicates that more people think the economy is headed in the right direction. Remember that unemployment among those with college degrees is only about 5%. They would be likely to have some additional disposable income. Various top end luxury retailers had big 4th quarters as well.
———–
Since the GOP created most of the $14 trillion in debt, the sensible ones aren’t going to vote against raising it. Want to talk about “job-destroying policies?” That would be the mother-of-all-job-destroyers.
————
PS
E. D. Kain points out “75% of our current deficit problem is solved simply by ending the Bush tax cuts. Bringing down defense spending to pre-Bush levels solves most of the remaining 25%. The Affordable Care Act begins to address the fundamental flaws in healthcare spending (though by no means does it go all the wayâ┚¬Ã‚¦yet.)
———–
PPS
@bilho….See? I told you.
We have a $14 trillion debt, most of which is the result of Republican policies that started in 1980.
If Democrats recommend any tax increases to help address the budget gap we get bullsh*t like this: “I hear Obama is going after that guy who lives over the hill.The guy nobody knows or likes.The guy who lives to hurt other people.That evil rich guy.Same shit different day.”
Nevermind that St. Ronnie of Raygun raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office.
Americans disagree with the GOP’s baloney. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll asked Americans the best way to reduce the deficit. The Republican mantra — spending cuts, and nothing else — received 31% backing. A combination of cuts and tax increases was preferred by a 64% majority.
Even 47% of Republicans believe a combination of spending cuts and tax increases is the way to go.
————————
As for the debt ceiling Politico notes:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has had conversations with top Wall Street executives, asking how close Congress could push to the debt limit deadline without sending interests rates soaring and causing stock prices to go lower, people familiar with the matter said.
The Wall Street executives say even pushing close to the deadline — or talking about it — could have grave consequences in the marketplace.
“[Conservatives] don’t seem to understand that you can’t put everything back in the box. Once that fear of default is in the markets, it doesn’t just go away. We’ll be paying the price for years in higher rates,” said one executive.
Another said that “anyone interested in ‘testing’ the debt ceiling should understand the U.S. debt traded wider [with a higher yield] than Greek debt roughly five years ago. Then go ask CBO what happens to our deficits/public debt to GDP, if the 10-year [Treasury bond] goes from having to pay out 3.5 percent to 5.5 percent to 7.5 percent.” The executive said such an increase would result in a downgrade of U.S. debt by ratings agencies and an end to the dollar as the standard global reserve currency.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53094.html
PS
Did you aunt Maggie make more money this year than 4 years ago? If so, good for her.
Helen I loved that you said “you cant put it back in the box”.That is the way i feel about everything liberalism does. They create spending that can never be cut.
Your understanding of Republican policies is fuzzy and wrong. Heritage foundation has facts galore that shred what you are trying to say.(Im sure you hate them as well as every lib should)I wont even bother to argue it.Calling Reagan a taxer is nonsense except in the loosest flippancy.
And that leads us to the debt.Yes yes we must probably raise the ceiling until we get a handle on spending…Or just lets call it liberalism.The Republicans have been very unsuccessful at their rhetoric on smaller gov less taxation and less spending.The libs in local and fed government have been very successful at bigger gov…more taxation ,and more spending in the years since Reagan.We are simply wrongheaded in our fiscal approach Helen.And taxing the rich will accomplish nothing.It is a feel good moment.
I must add…….I am all for closing tax loopholes.Making the tax structure simpler.That may i say, may mean a raise in many tax rates.Most likely scenario…….It will start with the top 1%.Move to the to the top 10%,than the top 25% and so on.The line in the sand will be stopping at the place where liberals believe is their voting block departure point.I almost wish it happened yesterday so you could witness the immediate correlating explosion in government swallowing up whatever gains were made faster than the checks are cashed.Following that would be a corresponding decrease in money flowing through the markets.Jobs except for government would decline.Tax revenues would decrease.More lending,more printing…yadda yadda yadda.
I love New york.Very liberal city.High cost,high taxes,if you have a brain and the money you get out.Didnt they just loose the owner of another major team?Sabers maybe?He is moving to Florida where taxes are far far less as well as cost.I heard Oprah was asked if she still lived in New York.She said ‘I watch to the minute how much time i spend there so as not to get caught in the tax net.Didn’t she vote and support Obama?Like Bidon said…”you should feel privileged to pay taxes”I guess she didn’t want that privilege. Helen will show a stat that the rich are roaring back to NY.Bolderdash
First Read: “So how did we get from a budget surplus at the beginning of George W. Bush’s presidency to deficits and debt as far as the eye can see?
Here’s a quick timeline:
The Bush tax cuts (2001), 9/11 and the Afghanistan war (2001), the Iraq war (2003), more tax cuts, the unpaid-for Medicare prescription-drug benefit (2003), the financial collapse and economic downturn (2008), the Obama stimulus (2009), and the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts (2010). Then you add the aging Baby Boomers to the whole mix.
Back in 2009, the New York Times calculated that 37% of the deficits were due the economic downturn, 33% were due to Bush’s policies, 20% were due to Obama’s extensions of Bush’s policies, and another 10% were due to Obama’s policies like the stimulus.”
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/04/13/how_the_national_debt_ballooned.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wire%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail
PS
I debunked your New York nonsense on another thread here.
PPS
The reason you’re perpetually confused about basic economics is that you believe Heritage Foundation “facts.” But I already knew that.
That is the way i feel about everything liberalism does. They create spending that can never be cut.
Uh, the biggest new spending program of the last 20 years was the GOP’s Medicare Part D.
The fact that none of the spending was funded makes things even worse.
Reagan’s tax hikes…..
Bruce Bartlett:
Almost immediately upon enactment of the 1981 tax cut, Reagan came under enormous pressure to do something about the federal budget deficit. While his preferred approach was to cut spending as much as necessary, it was not politically possible to so. His aides began pressuring him to support a tax increase.
Conservative activists were appalled that Reagan would even consider such a thing, but he eventually endorsed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. According to a Treasury Department analysis, it raised taxes by close to one percent of GDP, equivalent to $150 billion per year today, and was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.
This was just the first of many tax increases that President Reagan endorsed and signed into law. There were 11 major tax increases during his administration.
According to a table in Reagan’s last budget (FY 1990), the cumulative legislated tax increase during his administration came to $132.7 billion as of 1988 . This compared to a gross tax cut of $275.1 billion. Thus Reagan took back about half the 1981 tax cut with subsequent tax increases.
————————–
Bartlett also points out that as Governor of California Reagan raised taxes more than once by amounts that would be considered staggering by today’s standards
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2154/reagans-forgotten-tax-record
Helen Helen Helen…….So the deficit that has ballooned in Obamas time to more than all the presidents from Washington to Bush together is not his fault at all but Bushes?Or Bush Sr?Or Reagans?…..Or Lincolns?What is this political hopscotch?
Reagan was a tax and spend president?
Republicans spend more than Democrats?
Republicans tax more than democrats?
Bush tax cuts(extended by BAM)led to a huge jump in money in the coffers,yet you believe actually caused a rise in the deficit,not spending?
You believe the crushing taxes on New york are going to result in not tax refugees but rich people flowing in to be patriotic and fight to be first in line to pay those taxes?
You attribute all good things with Clinton(as did Monica… sic) yet cant see the few things that went well were also due to the counter weight of a Newt and a R house….. and yes constant Reagan spillover.(In spite of that we were careening into a recession by the way when Bush stepped in.)And lets remember that Clinton(Reno) had a thing or two to do with bank deregulations as connected to Fanny and Freddy,and boy that worked out well.Can you say all your gains erased in one swift move?
Karl Rove was on Fox today proving that we have no fiduciary problem but a spending one.I know he is a dum dum too right?And Heritage has facts that are not facts.You simply disregard one side for the other due to ideology.
I think the thing that gets me in liberalism is the counter intuitive illogical reasoning it uses.Raise taxes on those who produce to subsidize those who don’t or wont is smart fiscal planning..Raise the corporate tax rate (it already is the highest)even higher to………KEEP industry expanding and growing within this land.
I have noticed that you argue minutia yet avoid the big picture(often called a smoke screen)We can tax the rich at a much higher rate starting today(between one tax or another they pay 50% plus already) and nothing will happen.We can tax them at the highest rates ever listed and nothing will happen.You will gain on this hand, and loose on the other. Whatever is left the government will spend in the blink of an eye.It is one big red herring the left is carrying as their battle flag.
Today is the anniversary of the tea party movement.2 years.Speaker Pelosi called it astro turf.Others said it was a non entity.Lots of derision from a lot of shitting- their- pants politicians.Anti constitutional Libs,and old dog Rs.People on the left say we are on the wane(Not realizing we have families and jobs and are not paid to rally)Just wait.
“So the deficit that has ballooned in Obamas time to more than all the presidents from Washington to Bush together is not his fault at all” [no, i never said that. plus the stimlus added a bit…approx 7%] “but Bushes?Or Bush Sr?Or Reagans?â┚¬Ã‚¦..Or Lincolns?What is this political hopscotch? ”
No it’s reality. As Obama was taking office, tax revenues were crashing and demand on safety net spending was rising. That is totally on Bush 43.
“Republicans spend more than Democrats? “Yes.
“Bush tax cuts(extended by BAM)led to a huge jump in money in the coffers,yet you believe actually caused a rise in the deficit,not spending? ”
Yes, since tax revenues dropped after the two Bush cuts.
“You believe the crushing taxes on New york are going to result in not tax refugees but rich people flowing in to be patriotic and fight to be first in line to pay those taxes?”
No but studies how shown that the people least likely to leave NYC are the top earners. In NJ, after a 2003 tax hike, there was a modest exodus of top earners but overall the state took in more revenue.
Karl Rove was on Fox today proving that we have no fiduciary problem but a spending one.I know he is a dum dum too right? NO, simply that he’s a liar. Shock!
You attribute all good things with Clinton yet cant see the few things that went well were also due to the counter weight of a Newt and a R houseâ┚¬Ã‚¦.. and yes constant Reagan spillover.
There was no Reagan spillover. The country went into recession in 90-91 at which point Bush 41 raised taxes.
(In spite of that we were careening into a recession by the way when Bush stepped in.)
The recession of 00-01 was far shorter and shallower than the previous two.
And lets remember that Clinton(Reno) had a thing or two to do with bank deregulations as connected to Fanny and Freddy,and boy that worked out well.
Fannie and Freddie did not cause the housing crash.
And, yes, all the top money funding the teabaggers is astroturf.
“a lot of shitting- their- pants politicians.”
Ach, Michael iz exhibiting hiz anal-fixationz again. I zuggezt therapy!
“Bush tax cuts(extended by BAM)led to a huge jump in money in the coffers,yet you believe actually caused a rise in the deficit,not spending? ”
Yes, since I’m not the only one.
CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. Tax cuts account for nearly half â┚¬” 48 percent â┚¬” of this $539 billion in increased costs. Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.
Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Ed Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, talking to journalists at the Washington Times in October 2006 conceded “that the tax cutsâ┚¬Ã‚¦cut deeply into government revenue.â┚¬Ã‚Â
In 2007 the CBO said that almost all of the current Bush tax cuts provisions “reduced revenue”
——————-
A newer study found real individual income tax receipts declined 25.06% from 2001 to 2009.
http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
More money came in during that time…More also went out.Hence the deficit.What you are talking about is the blind eye CBO accounting practices.Revenue is accounted in generation of taxes right?.One trick pony time.In this case many economists said although revenue went up …it would of been even higher in a tax increase.Because it is not quantifiable. Yet Increasing marginal tax rates actually lowers tax revenue(Heritage)That is why Obama extended it.Because unlike you he was told by his top economists,that that is the way the cookie crumbles.If I don’t get it….neither does he.It must of blown all your minds when he did it. Again say what you mean.What you mean is the best use of our money is to let government control it.Bush said,It is the reverse.I wholeheartedly agree with him.Hoe anyone can think the government has been a good steward/manager of our money bewilders me.They are two rungs above RAT HOLE!
Anybody notice a great dufus moment in BAMS speech?He said without medicare,and the other entitlement programs this would not be a great country.Does that mean that prior to 1965 we were not a great country?Yet I can see how in his mindset he would see it that way. Remember Michelle…..”for the first time in my life I love my country”?They see America through very strange glasses.
Clinton began his presidency by confronting the Republican legacy of deficits [$3.2 trillion added to the national debt in 12 years, an increase of over 400%] with higher taxes and lower expenditures, but Obama, since tax cuts were off the table and the credit markets had frozen up, had no realistic choice other than to increase spending substantially, or let the country sink into depression.
—————–
The democrats might be the party of “tax and spend,” but that’s far better than the alternative GOP approach, “not tax then spend.” Nevermind that taxing and spending are basic roles for any 20th/21st century govenment in a function society.
——————-
The reason that we did far better in the 90’s were Clinton tax and safety net policies as well as Congress operating under PayGo rules, which were in place pre-Newt. In 2002 the GOP ended them…and then our troubles began.
——————-
If you look at how our economy has done under Presidents starting with FDR, the domocrats have the better record. If you start with Hoover, the GOP is trampled in the dust. If you had invested in the stock market when Dems held the White House and pulled out when a Republican was President, you would be light years ahead of where you would be if you did it the other way around.
——————-
“We can tax them at the highest rates ever listed and nothing will happen.You will gain on this hand, and loose on the other. Whatever is left the government will spend in the blink of an eye.”
No, the extra revenue would be used to bring down the debt.
———–
PS
Can you name a Democratic elected official [or even a leading liberal pundit] that is calling for raising the Federal corporate tax rate above 35%? Closing loopholes doesn’t count.
PPS
What are you trying to say here: “between one tax or another the rich pay 50% plus already;” 50% of all taxes or 50% of their income in taxes?
The top 40% of Americans pay approx 2% less in total taxes than they make in total income. The top 1% make 23% of all income and pay 24% of all taxes. The typical taxpayer spends approx 28% of their income in total taxes.
“More money came in during that timeâ┚¬Ã‚¦More also went out. Hence the deficit.”
No, less money came in. 48% of the deficit was due to decreased revenue. If there had been not Bu$hco cuts, we would have been running surpluses.
—————–
“Yet Increasing marginal tax rates actually lowers tax revenue(Heritage)”
Then how do they explain increased revenue after the Clinton tax hike?
Answer: They can’t
————–
Obama didn’t leave the marginal rates where they were because of Heritage flim-flam, he did it because otherwise he couldn’t save the middle-class cuts he promised he’d perserve. Did you sleep thru the negotiations last December?
————————–
“Anybody notice a great dufus moment in President Obama’s speech?He said without medicare, and the other entitlement programs this would not be a great country.Does that mean that prior to 1965 we were not a great country?”
Uh….Social Security started in the 30’s. Compared to the rest of the industrial nation states, if we didn’t hadve these programs we’d look like a third-world country. Hard to imagine we’d be “great.” Except as a banana republic.
PS
The free market, with the help of GOP mismanagement, brought us the great recession.
PPS
I’ve lived in both pre and post-Medicare America. I have zero interest in seeing the program gone.
Fixed, sure. We start by tackling Medical inflation. That’s the thing making the program unsubstainable.
What he missed is we have been a great nation since our inception.Did i sleep through the negotiations?If only i could have.The free market IS freedom personified.The “great recession was caused by massive social programs and spending. Weak enforcement of rules and mandates, and in some cases lack of such.In some cases (banking hit both sides)too much.I could track everything that caused the sub prime mortgage collapse to liberalism.In fact i did it BEFORE it happened.
I also think we can afford some things.In fact must.Not under a liberal tax and spend movement.Sorry
Helen…Could I ever talk you into giving Dr Walter E Williams a listen.Eco prof at George Mason.I agree with him on many things
“I could track everything that caused the sub prime mortgage collapse to liberalism”
How did liberalism lead to not regulating the derivatives market?
How did liberalism lead to mortgage lenders toss their lending standards in the trash?
How did liberalism lead to banks not keeping their loans on their books?
How did liberalism lead to securitization abuses?
How did liberalism lead to appraisers over valuing properties?
How did liberalism lead to the ratings agencies betraying their mandate?
Answer it didn’t. Conservatism did that.
The free market, with the help of GOP mismanagement, brought us the great recession. Increased social spending [including the budget busting Medicare part d] programs did not .
Williams? You’re kidding right? Anyone who describes an Ayn Rand book as “one of the best defenses and explanations of capitalism one is likely to read,” shouldn’t be taken seriously for a nanosecond. He’s an ideological dunce…no wonder you agree with him.
“So the deficit that has ballooned in Obamas time to more than all the presidents from Washington to Bush together is not his fault at all but Bushes?Or Bush Sr?Or Reagans?â┚¬Ã‚¦..Or Lincolns? ”
The deficit for FY2009 [Bu$hco year 8] was $1.2 trillion, this year the deficit was $1.5 trillion. Obviously that’s not “ballooning to more than all the presidents from Washington to Bush together”
The national debt on 1/20/09 was $10.6 trillion [$5.8 trillion happened on Bu$h43’s watch], currently it’s $14 trillion. Obviously that’s not “ballooning to more than all the presidents from Washington to Bush together.”
What I’ve been saying: 90% of the increase in the national debt from 1980 to 2008 was caused by Reagan, Bush41 and Bu$h43. Most of the increase in the national debt since then was caused by the collapse of the Bu$hco economy and the continuation of Bu$hco policies.
The vast majority of our current deficit is caused by reduced revenues and increased mandatory entitlement spending, our two wars plus defense spending increases and Medicare spending increases. New policies started by President Obama have created approximately 15% of the current budget deficit.
———————
“What he missed is we have been a great nation since our inception.”
Actually, we were a great nation in theory but not in practice. Only white male property owners could vote. Widespread genocide drove our geographic expansion. Slavery was practiced for 75 years until the south succeeded to preserve it. We then spent four years at war with each other. Then legal discrimination was accepted in parts of our country by the entire country for another 100 years. Pardon me if I don’t think the country was all that “great” back then.
——————
“Today [April 15th] is the anniversary of the tea party movement.”
Uh, Michael, that’s not even right. The actual anniversary was Feb. 19th. That was the day big business mouthpiece Rick Santelli broadcast a rant on big business mouthpiece CNBC.
The next morning the astroturfers at FauxNews, the biggest astroturf organization of them all, started taking up the Teabaggers. The first day of coordinated rallies was Feb. 27th.
Well it IS the corporate media after all. Nuff said.