Congressman Cummings asks the rich to help him out of the mess the Dems created.
No really. That’s what he said. That’s why I included the video to make sure you knew I wasn’t making this stuff up. Unbelievable.
From yesterday’s MSNBC interview with Andrea Mitchell, Cummings is asked if he believes raising taxes on the wealthy will hurt the economy more. Cummings responds by saying 91% of small business won’t be hurt (I am not sure where that comes from. I searched. I believe it probably some CBO score, but I don’t buy it because I ran a small business and we came damn close. We had 4 employees).
Then he makes some unintelligible remarks about business expanding even if taxes are higher because they always do. Even Christina Romer and her husband disagree with that one. And finally the money line. Help!
Let me clear up a few things on fair share.
Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the U.S. tax system is already highly progressive. The top 1 percent of income earners paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes in 2007, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. More than one-third of U.S. earners paid no federal income tax at all.
And here’s a visual from Heritage if you need one.
Go read the whole thing. It’s sourced. But enough of this wealthy stuff. What’s in it for meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee? a yacht? A mortgage deal? A condo in the Dominican? Maybe a limo I don’t need to declare as income? How about a vacation in Spain or a private jet? Hmmmm?
One has to wonder if she talks to her husband at all. The last place you want to go for accurate, or even commonsense, economic advice is to a Democrat.
Author Robert Creamer July 28th “Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Breaks for the Rich”
The unemployment figures tell all. The correlation between who controls Congress and unemployment tells even more.
Is that the same Robert Creamer that pleaded guilty to bank fraud in 2005? (http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/U.S.Rep.2.320652.html). The one that worked for Daley and Blagojevich? The one that contributes to the Huffington Post in which this is found?
Well heck, if you can't believe him, who can you believe?
Nice objective source ya got there.
Yeah, let's check on what Breitbart, Fox, Morrisey and Hoft say! They are objective.
Well, chris, you can check them if you like, but you will notice that I do not. So you tacitly admit that your "source" is biased? Thanks.
As for the chart, it makes my point. Thank you. Jobs grew until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, then it flattened out, and took a real dive after Øbama was in office. Conversely, the economy was tepid for Clinton until after the 1994 elections. Remember what happened then? The Repubs took over an the economy skyrocketed. Clinton got the credit, but a real analysis of the time line with respect to who has the majority in Congress tells a more accurate story. The 80's and 90's clearly demonstrate that (although that is a poorly designed graph in that it utilizes gray for everything but two decades. Similarly, one linear graph would have told the story more clearly.
Go ahead and fight if you want to. Play into the politicians hands.
I'm not buying this bull any more.
Here is what the American people have in common:
The Constitution and the bill of rights.
We have been duped by our own parties.
DC takes no fiscal responsible.
They work for big business, not for us.
They fight each other and care not for the their constituents.
Then they get us to fight amongst ourselves
We fall for thier lies every election.
We drink the election year koolaid of "This election, things will be different".
For myself, I'm gonna focus on the common sense, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.
Precisely! While the Republicans may be the lesser of two evils (in my opinion of course), they are still evil. They are professional politicians. They are a lot of things, but representatives of the people they are not. They represent themselves first.
@chris-os….Can't believe I did it, but went to balloon-juice.com (and I don't even want to know what "balloon-juice" is a euphemism for)….seems like the site is, oh, how should I put it? Extremely left-inclined and full of profanity? Definitely not a site I'd go to again. But everyone has their own sources, I guess.
Yeah that chart has been all over the web-but not on your sites.
Don't get yourself confused-better just stick to "Hot Air" (and we know what that is a euphemism for).
Don't go to hot air, either. And I've never seen that chart.
Here are some charts for you, winnie: http://www.agoyandhisblog.com/2010/03/26/every-pi…
That chart is actually old news … and correct information. I've been writing about this since 2008.
I also did all the research to look at what happened after the tax cuts in 2001-2003. Both of these articles include original information, sourced from government data, by myself. Certainly the information is not current since it's been two or three years, but all of it is valid.
Funny, how few even attempt to read those posts or try to absorb the hard data.
The "oh, you only read Hot Air et. al. stuff" is getting really boring and not true. Sure, we link to many sites and other blogs quite frequently since we're – for the most part – on the same page. That's what bloggers across the political spectrum do… I certainly don't see Rick Green, Daily Kos or the Hartford Courant (as examples) providing links to this site frequently ya know?
"Sure, we link to many sites and other blogs quite frequently since we’re – for the most part – on the same page."
I was addressing winnie, not you steve. I realize what bloggers like yourself do-why would you link to sites contradictory to yours?
But, someone-and others do the same-has said that all they need are the sites listed to the right (here on you blog)to get information! It seems people do not want to open their minds to more information and constructive debate. They just dig in their heels-it's kinda sad..
And the chart I linked to is newer-data through nov. 2009.
If you actually look at it, it isn't contradictory. See above.
Funny that if you tax businesses, like here in CT, they leave. I'd read back in the 90s about an heir to Campbell's Soup who renounced his citizenship and moved to Ireland (A place with socialized healthcare and, ironically, a more favorable tax climate.) So I found an article which contends that there's a trend of pissed-off/on wealthy people leaving the USA- and taking their wealth with them: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/more-rich… I can not believe that any moron could ever think that the problem with Washington DC is that they need more of our money. Unless of course you live on the dole, in your parent's attic or are a career college student who plans on working for NPR and writing articles about your deceased mother's Ford Taurus in the Hartford Courant- and, yes, that would be Colin, uhhhhhh, McEndope! http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22…
If you tax something, you get less of it. Subsidize it (or, by extension, don't tax it) and you get more.
Ask John Kerry.
Moody's Analytics: Extend the bush tax cuts: $.32 return for every dollar in terms of economic stimulus.
Extending the unemployment insurance (which the Rep's were railing against): $1.62 return.
Jim shot that misconception down and stewed it. You should listen.
And get your story straight: the Republicans were not against unemployment insurance extensions: they were insisting that the unspent stimulus money or other sources be used to fund it.
As for ending the "Bush Tax cuts for the rich", how come Steny Hoyer and other Dems are now trying to reframe the act as "Bush's tax increases" if it is such a great thing?
"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Wednesday that the expiration built into the Bush tax cuts is a “Republican tax increase” for “working Americans” and the Democrats have “no intention” of allowing it to go into effect.
'We have no intention of allowing the Republican tax increase — that their policies would lead to — to go into effect for working Americans. Period,” he said. “We’re going to act and make sure that the Republican phase out and increase in taxes does not end as they provided for in the laws they passed.'" http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdnz…
Why is Pelosi saying that the Bush tax cuts will be extended for the middle class? (You mean that someone other than the rich got them?) http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/28/Pelosi-…
Why is Øbama encouraging Congress to continue the Bush tax cuts for individuals making under $250,000 a year and to raise taxes on those with income above that amount. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704…
Don't they want credit for killing the tax cuts they have demonized in the face of the recession?
Almost forgot: Moody's hasn't exactly been the paragon of truth and accuracy in economics. To wit: "Buffett silent on Moody's mistakes" (http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/03/18/Buffett-silent-on-Moodys-mistakes/UPI-17941237392274/) makes for some interesting reading.
Wow-unable to comment on the fox/sherrod post-all the oxygen was sucked out of that room! Steve musta closed it because of violations to the TOU.
And where will the $$ come from for the extension of the tax cuts-as the R's wanted to extend unempl. only if there was $$ to pay for it. (2 trillion over 10 yrs.).
Going back to your tirade while observing TOU-"take down Bush"-didn't see it, no one had to-he took himself down.
#2. Your group goes ballistic when any mention of "racism" is referred to. I find it hilarious that the Repubs are now resorting to a racist (reverse) tirade against the Dems-and you have bought into it , lock, stock and barrel!
Credit where credit is due, the righties really know how to get their follower's panties in a bunch!
From the stimulus money the Democrats are holding back to spend at election time.
You are right: people falsely accused of racism should laugh in the face of the accuser. Unfortunately, the media blasts the accusations everywhere. The "reverse racist tirade" is a response to unfounded accusations (lies) by the left. The conservatives are not initiating it, but if you have evidence to the contrary, then provide it please.
You still haven't addressed my points in the above posts.
I see. So we have to pay for tax cuts, but we don't have to pay for unemployment benefit extensions.
You still did not address why the Democrats are trying to keep them.
so it took this unemployment benefit extension for the republicans to find fiscal religion? you can't argue with their premise of "paygo", but what took them so long? its nothing short of political stupidity to dig in their heels on this issue, with the unemployment rate where it is. Nevertheless, I wish the repubs in this congress, and the dems in the last one, had decided that all legislation had to be paid for with no exceptions. We'd be much better off if they had. This is just more hypocrisy, plenty of that to go around, on both sides.
I wish the premise and the reality of "paygo" were one and the same, but it is far easier to raise taxes than find ways to cut spending.