Few would argue the fact that Citizens United has been a major player in the Republican primary...and many if not most would concede that none of it has been healthy ...
As if you needed another reason to not vote Romney.
Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if ...
In a perfect world, the Republican contest to find a nominee to face Barack Obama would go on forever...or at least until August. You cannot attach a number to the ...
I suspect there are a ton of conservatives secretly agreeing with Begala and while it's too early in the game for Dems to get cocky, it's difficult to not smile ...
Quotes don't get much better than this one by Bob Dole.
"Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly ...
After the beating Gingrich took last night, it's hard to imagine under what scenario he can make a comeback. Florida is going to Romney and for Gingrich to regain the ...
There's a lot out there on the President's SOTU, so I'll keep my thoughts short and sweet.
The speech did what it had to do which was target liberals and independents ...
The highlights from last night's debate.
- Newt Gingrich can't wait to become president so he can revisit the early 60s and overthrow Castro in Cuba. War, baby, war.
- Santorum, who ...
It appears that the South Carolina verdict is forcing Romney to start taking Gingrich seriously.
“We’re not choosing a talk show host, we’re choosing a leader,” Romney said, saying that their ...
Mike Huckabee offers advice to Mitt Romney concerning his unreleased tax returns.
Let him [Romney] make this challenge: "I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and ...
Via Political Humor...
"Mitt Romney is coming under fire because even though he is a multimillionaire, he only paid 15 percent in taxes. That's not a tax, that's barely a tip." ...
Good line.
My guess is that after Romney fails to beat Obama in the general, Huntsman will be back in 2016. The most electable guy in the field and he could ...
I found this pretty funny...and accurate. It comes from a reader over at Balloon Juice.
So, let’s review. The contenders for the GOP nomination are
A vulture capitalist who believes that any ...
Lively little debate going on at one of last week's posts with Libertarianism put under the microscope.
ocLiberal:
I know I am in sketchy territory here, (start the indignant shouting now) but ...
In the contest to determine the winner of the Far-Right Politics gold medal, rack up a few more points for Newt Gingrich.
“I think an intelligent conservative wants the right federal ...
Via Political Humor...
"Congratulations to Mitt Romney. He won the New Hampshire primary last night. See, this is proof that even the multimillionaire son of a multimillionaire can beat the odds ...
Story 1:
North Korea punishing those who 'didn't display enough sadness over Kim Jong Il's death'
North Korean authorities are reportedly punishing citizens who did not display enough sadness over the death ...
In case you missed the story, Pope Benedict made headlines this week by doing what it is popes do best - putting the irrational fear of God into his followers.
The ...
Romney was asked whether questions dealing with distribution of wealth and power were a matter of jealousy or fairness.
You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class ...
Paul Krugman weighs in on Republicans and their adamant and ridiculous position on maintaining tax cuts for the rich.
Republicans are feeling good about the midterms — so good that they’ve started saying what they really think. This week the party’s Senate leadership stopped pretending that it cares about deficits, stating explicitly that while we can’t afford to aid the unemployed or prevent mass layoffs of schoolteachers, cost is literally no object when it comes to tax cuts for the affluent.
[...]
But the real news here is the confirmation that Republicans remain committed to deep voodoo, the claim that cutting taxes actually increases revenues.
It’s not true, of course. Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on top incomes, conservatives predicted economic disaster; what actually followed was an economic boom and a remarkable swing from budget deficit to surplus. Then the Bush tax cuts came along, helping turn that surplus into a persistent deficit, even before the crash.
But we’re talking about voodoo economics here, so perhaps it’s not surprising that belief in the magical powers of tax cuts is a zombie doctrine: no matter how many times you kill it with facts, it just keeps coming back. And despite repeated failure in practice, it is, more than ever, the official view of the G.O.P.
Can it be any clearer? No, it cannot and yet conservatives still don’t get it… and we know why.
___ .
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s page. Click here
“There’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”
“…it’s hard to see the country prospering when one of its two major political parties is this economically illiterate. McConnell isn’t some backbencher. He’s Senate minority leader. And he thinks there’s “no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue.”
“Economically illiterate”? Those are harsh words, Professor Klein. Do you have anything besides your biased liberal opinions to back up those words?
“The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs.”
Ok, not bad but I need more. What else you got, Professor?
“How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush’s CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term “charlatans and cranks” for people who believed that “broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue.” He continued: “I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don’t.” ”
[...]
“Mark Zandi, an adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign, estimated (pdf) that a dollar spent extending the Bush tax cuts would generate .32 cents of taxable economic activity, while a dollar spent on unemployment benefits would generate $1.61 of taxable economic activity.”
“In other words, using the theory under which tax cuts pay for themselves, unemployment benefits are a lot likelier to pay for themselves.”
That’s quite a case you make, Professor. The use of conservative economists to back up your statement as well as the 2005 (Bush years) CBO estimate was quite masterful. It does appear that Senator McConnell and his gang of “charlatans and cranks” (a quote from Bush’s own guy…nice move) have little desire to be economically literate or, for that matter, honest. The documents you cite are all readily available to anyone caring to know the facts.
It almost makes one think that Republicans might have an ulterior motive behind their lies and deception. A foolish thought I’m sure for I cannot imagine an American politician (or party) being so callously insensitive as to deprive millions of their fellow citizens of benefits which would not only help the individuals and their families survive at a time of depression but in fact help grow the economy of the country as a whole.
No one could be that cold-blooded and ignorant…could they?
___ .
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s page. Click here .
Here’s how it works if you’re of the Republican persuasion: unemployment benefits must be paid for in some manner to offset any increase to the deficit but tax cuts to the rich need not be covered. Senator Jon Kyl explains.
“My view, and I think most of the people in my party don’t believe that you should ever have to offset a tax cut. That clearly reduced savings is a better way to offset increased spending than a tax increase is.”
[...]
To me you shouldn’t look at it [unemployment benefits] as an economic matter, it’s a humanitarian matter. You got people who are out of work, who can’t find work, you want to help ‘em out. Families need help. That’s why you provide it. You don’t do it because it’s going to stimulate the economy. You have to borrow the money in order to pay the folks. That borrowing has huge costs. They are adverse economics costs. So it’s not a good thing for the economy. It’s a bad thing for the economy but it’s still the right thing to do for other reasons.
Kyl might believe it’s “the right thing to do” but he still voted against extending unemployment benefits. The Congressional Budge Office, as do a number of economists, view unemployment benefits in a time of recession as a positive force. They claim it stimulates the economy and decreases job loss by increasing the ability for the unemployed to spend.
In short, Kyl and his fellow Republicans are of the twisted logic that tax cuts for the rich do not require offsets but unemployment benefits to the middle class must be paid for. Put another way: save the rich, damn the poor…and middle class.
Here is Kyl explaining Republican logic to a beleaguered liberal.
.
___ .
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s page. Click here .
The gap between the wealthiest Americans and middle- and working-class Americans has more than tripled in the past three decades, according to a June 25 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
New data show that the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest parts of the population in 2007 was the highest it’s been in 80 years, while the share of income going to the middle one-fifth of Americans shrank to its lowest level ever.
The CBPP report attributes the widening of this gap partly to Bush Administration tax cuts, which primarily benefited the wealthy. Of the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts taxpayers received through 2008, high-income households received by far the largest — not only in amount but also as a percentage of income — which shifted the concentration of after-tax income toward the top of the spectrum.
The average household in the top 1 percent earned $1.3 million after taxes in 2007, up $88,800 just from the prior year, while the income of the average middle-income household hovered around $55,300. While the nation’s total income has grown sharply since 1979, according to the CBPP report, the wealthiest households have claimed an increasingly large share of the pie.
___ .
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s page. Click here .
If the worst economic depression of the last seventy years were a play, it’s genre would no doubt be classified as a tragedy. Two pundits lay out the players.
Republicans block an extension of unemployment benefits, rail about the deficit and complain that Democrats don’t understand that economic renewal will come when the private sector is unleashed. The problem is that since Republicans are in the minority, they have to work with the Democrats to get anything done. I suspect that their strategy — standing on the sidelines and yelling, “The Democrats are doing it all wrong!” — will not win as much favor from voters as the GOP hopes.
Democrats.
Democrats, on the other hand, do have the power to enact an agenda. But individual members of Congress act as if they are more concerned about their own electoral prospects than about bringing those unemployment numbers down. If a second economic stimulus is the answer, then that’s what Democrats should do. If the answer is something else, fine. But they should know that whether they call themselves progressives or Blue Dogs or whatever, voters see them as one party and will hold them accountable.
Seventy years ago, Americans found themselves in the depths of despair. The economy had crashed, unemployment was at 25 percent, people lined up at bread lines and soup kitchens, and nearly everyone was reeling in anxiety at what the future held for them. But as dire as things were, few Americans expected an immediate remedy. What they expected was some sort of action. Franklin Roosevelt first boosted morale by promising to tackle the problem and then set about on a long course to do just that — a course that wouldn’t conclusively end until World War II. Through it all, the country by and large demonstrated extraordinary maturity and patience. It persevered.
In our current economic travails, the public attitude is strikingly different. Americans want the economic disaster to be over now, and we are angry that it isn’t. We don’t have time for financial reforms or pump-priming or a long-term transformation to a green economy. We expect a magic wand. And who can blame us? Unlike our forebears, we live in a society in which nearly everything happens instantly. Impatience is the new American way.
Will the wishes of a self-serving few in Congress determine the final act?
___ .
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s page. Click here .
Recent Comments