Beck on guest who favored tax cuts for lower-income Americans: "Nice of you to join us, Stalin"
SUMMARY: Responding to guest Jeff Frankel's statement that "[a]ll the past tax cuts have gone primarily to the rich, and I think it's -- it is time to give some of it to lower-income, working Americans," Glenn Beck said, "Nice of you to join us, Stalin. I mean, that is the redistribution of wealth!" This is not the first time Beck has invoked the Soviet Union in characterizing policies or people with whom he disagrees.
On the January 22 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck program, host Glenn Beck compared an economics professor who espoused tax cuts for lower-income Americans to former Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. Appearing on the program, Jeff Frankel, the James W. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, stated: "All of the past tax cuts have gone primarily to the rich, and I think it's - it is time to give some of it to lower-income, working Americans." Beck replied: "Nice of you to join us, Stalin. I mean, that is the redistribution of wealth!"
As Media Matters for America has documented, this is not the first time Beck has invoked the Soviet Union in characterizing policies or people with whom he disagrees. On the January 9 edition of his show, Beck said of presidential candidate John Edwards, "I listened to him last night give a speech, and, I mean, why not just start wearing the Soviet star on your head and the Workers World Party?" Beck also previously asserted that "[p]olitical correctness has its roots in the old Soviet Union. ... [I]f someone was caught saying something that was out of line with Lenin's thinking, according to Trotsky, they'd be taken away for re-education until they were politically correct."
From the January 22 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
FRANKEL: Well, I agree with a lot of that. But first, any talk about giving tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes, there's -- we want to be very clear here. The tax cuts -- which have been truly massive, that have been passed over the last seven years -- have gone overwhelmingly to the rich, to some extent to the middle class, and not at all to lower-income, working Americans, including --
BECK: They don't pay taxes!
FRANKEL: I'm sorry, they do pay payroll taxes.
BECK: Payroll taxes. They're going to get that money back, supposedly --
PETER SCHIFF (author and Euro Pacific Capital president): Well, you know they're not.
BECK: -- through Social Security.
SCHIFF: They'll never see that money. We all know that.
BECK: I mean, jeez.
FRANKEL: We've -- people have properly focused on incentives in this country and we realize that incentives are important. If you're trying to lift yourself out of poverty and work yourself up into the middle class, we have a high marginal tax right now, including the payroll tax and including when you do move into paying income taxes.
All the past tax cuts have gone primarily to the rich, and I think it's -- it is time to give some of it to lower-income, working Americans.
BECK: Wow. Let me tell you, though --
FRANKEL: Both because they're going to spend it -- three reasons --
BECK: Nice of you to join us, Stalin. I mean, that is the redistribution of wealth!
Real grown up there, frat boy! In case you haven't noticed, we just spent the last 7 years re-distributing wealth to the top.
And thanks alot for re-affirming that unproven notion that no one is going to see their SS distribution. Unless you are suggesting that republicans are going to purposely kill it off, in which case you may have a point...
NERZ.....
I think it would go something like this......
"Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining!"
ten percent of the population owns 72 percent of the wealth of this country. bush got what he wanted, more and more going to the top. and all the dittoheads making 25 thousand a year call up rush and say them libruls want to tax me to death.
http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html
Can somebody explain to me why this man Beck has his own television program? Anyone?
Was it like that Eddie Murphy/Dan Aykroid movie "Trading Places", where some bum was pulled in off the street and given a position of responsibility, on a nasty cynical BET?
the only requirement to be a GOP propagandist is the ability and willingness to repeat total nonsense with a straight face...and no conscience.
But to be REALLY successful you must say it with unabashed poke-in-your-eye bravado. "I'm a jerk, it's my show, deal with it." People love this stuff. They don't care if he is right. They just enjoy seeing the happy bully giving someone a jab. Preferably a pointy-headed intellectual.
I might even give up a ticket to see Chris Rock at MSG on New Year's Eve to spend time with those two. That's what great comedians they are.
And where are some of them opting to create those new jobs?
IN CANADA! Where companies have a much lower employee health care cost burden! Imagine that!
Or to buy more crap in some 21st century "keeping up with the Joneses" BS?
nah...
I'm afraid MMFA may be missing the point, here. According to MMFA's summary for this post:
"Glenn Beck said, 'Nice of you to join us, Stalin. I mean, that is the redistribution of wealth!' This is not the first time Beck has invoked the Soviet Union in characterizing policies or people with whom he disagrees."
But Beck didn't directly invoke the Soviet Union; he specifically invoked Stalin, and that's a much uglier discursive tactic. Beck's mocking comparison of Frankel to Stalin for his position on tax policy isn't troubling because it refers to the Soviet Union or to a socialist state -- it's troubling because it refers to Stalin in particular. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Stalin isn't as well known in the United States for his economic policies as he is for his totalitarianism. There's nothing specifically Stalinist about the redistribution of wealth. On the other hand, by saying "Nice of you to join us, Stalin," Beck muddies the waters by associating Frankel with purges, deportations, GuLAGs, intensification of censorship, etc...
Yeah, I can just picture 50 years from now when the political pundits will be throwing around names like “Bush” and “Cheney” in much the same manner.
There's nothing specifically Stalinist about the redistribution of wealth.
Indeed.
And there's nothing specifically "redistribution of wealth" about tax cuts for the poor.
Beck is an ass.
"I thumbed through his brainless book and he had a part where he said the minimum wage should be $0 an hour because it is communist try to ensure equal wages. I wonder how long the low wage red staters will follow him?"
If you had done more than thumbed through the book you would have seen the part where he advocates states setting their own minimum wages because it makes no sense for the federal government to set minimum wage since $7.25 in Kansas isn't the same as $7.25 in NYC.
I take it then Glenda didn't mean Fred Stalin. I was thinking maybe (s)he mistook his guest for someone else.
;-)
ML,
No, they wouldn't getting their own money back. They'd get someone else's money. That's where the redistribution comes in. The language used during the conversation is confusing. The 3 were, in fact, discussing tax "rebates", not tax "cuts", although they kept referring to them as tax cuts. Beck's argument was that lower income earners don't have a federal tax liability to begin with (something like the bottom 47% of income earners don't pay any federal income tax), so to issue them a "rebate" of up to $800.00 would merely be a form of welfare payment.
Here's a scenario to illustrate what the good Harvard economist was proposing:
Let's say you go to your local electronics store to buy a new flat-screen TV. It costs $1,000.00, but the advertisement you got in the Sunday paper says that the manufacturer is offering an $800.00 rebate when you buy one. That makes the TV a great deal, so you grab the TV and pay the $1,000.00. Then you go over to the wall by the customer service counter and grab yourself the manufacturer's rebate coupon. There. Now you have everything you need to get your $800.00 rebate. You've got the UPC label off of the box, you've got your receipt, and you've got the rebate form. You're ready to fill it all out and mail it in.
But, as you're leaving the store, the manager stops you and demands that you hand over your receipt, UPC label and rebate coupon because he wants to give them to one of his neighbors.
You say "No. I just paid the $1,000.00 for this TV. That makes me entitled to the $800.00 rebate. Why do you want to hand it over to your neighbor? He didn't put up the money in the first place."
The manager replies, "Well, yeah, I know. But, you see, he doesn't make alot of money so he really can't afford to buy a new TV, so I thought that this money would help him get a new one. I don't see the big problem, though. I mean, you've got your TV, and now my neighbor will be able to get his, too. After all, it's not like the money is coming from you. The rebate check will come from the manufacturer."
How do you think you'll feel about the "rebate" right about that time?
Pardon me if I don't feel sorry for those Millionaires who won't be getting a rebate. They're having such a tough time.
BIG problem with your argument. Nobody is talking about a Social Security "rebate".
Social Security is a "contribution", remember? It's an "insurance premium", right? It goes into your very own account, and you will receive benefits based on what you put in. I'll bet a dollar to a dozen donuts that if someone who has no federal income tax liability receives a "rebate", the SSA won't reduce their SS account by that amount of money. So, where did the money come from?
In my scenario, I didn't imply that the person buying the TV was rich. Just that a person buys the TV. The illustration is that there is a person who did NOT pay ANY money to the manufacturer who now stands to receive $800.00.
My opinion is that the government should "rebate" income tax dollars to those people who actually PAY INCOME TAXES. Is that so wrong?
Let's say you go to a baseball game at the stadium. The game is rained out. It WON'T be made up later in the season. Would you prefer the baseball team refund the ticket sales money to the people who bought the tickets, or only refund the bleacher seats and give the rest to other residents scattered around the city?
When the Government stops raiding SS funds to spend on other things, then your argument has merit. As it is now, they treat it as one big pot of money. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but that's reality.
The idea of the "rebate" is to put money into the hands of people who need it, and will therefore spend it. If you want to call that a handout, or welfare, have at it. The rich don't need relief. A $1000 rebate won't change their spending behavior.
The government is not a retail store, but if you insist on the retail analogy, can I have my share of the Iraq War costs back? After all, the invasion was sold with false advertising, and hasn't done what they said it would do. I think I'm due a refund.
"Rebate" - To return part of an original payment.
Where is the "original payment" from the bottom 47%?
You're so good at twisting the issue! You should work with Karl Rove!
The "rebates" which we are to receive aren't necessarily "handouts" to the general public. It is an attempt to put more money into the hands of people who freaking spend it, in order to circumvent a recession. What's so wrong with that? How is this "redistribution of wealth"?
IMHO, a redistribution of wealth would entail MUCH MUCH more money than a $300 - $800 rebate check. As someone who is single, no dependants with a decent wage (around 100K), I'll probably get a $300 rebate check. I've paid more taxes than some, less than others. If I understand the rebate correctly, it's based on dependants, not necessarily on wage. Also, W said (yesterday?) that the rebate checks go to people who pay taxes. So, does that mean those who don't pay taxes will get a check? Do you even know? Why does it matter to you?
The goal here isn't to make the middle class richer (as much as I'd like the middle class to become richer). If it were, the checks would be for a much higher amount. The rebate is to avoid a recession (which some might say has already begun). It's not about the middle class - it's about the rich ass fatcats who have tons of money sunk into the stock market - so they don't lose their shirts. Open your eyes, Swine.
First of, CSL, I hate to break your bubble, but if you are making $100k, you won't see a dime.
First, you must understand the premise that I operate on: There is NO SUCH THING as "government money" or "public funds". Every single penny that the government collects, spends, distributes, allocates, apportions, whatever.....ultimately comes out of the pocket of an individual just like you and I. If government doubles spending, they then take twice as much out of our pockets. You, being a person that makes $100k, are undoubtedly aware of your federal tax liability. Just guessing here, but after deductions (and depending on how creative you are) you probably have a tax bill of about 7 or 8 thousand a year. Even at $100k, that stings!! So here comes the feds saying that we're going to start "rebates", but not for you. Instead, we're going to give it to someone whose tax liability was a big fat ZERO. That, my friend, by definition, is a welfare check.
Now, if you are giving a "rebate" (refund of an original payment), common sense would dictate that the "rebate" would go to those who have made one of those "original payments." As we have found out today, the package will give "rebates" to millions of people who have not made a payment. But you, Mr. 8,000 tax liability, get nothing because "you're rich" and "you'll just shove it into your savings anyway." I'd be willing to bet that even you could use an extra $600.00 right about now. THAT'S why it matters to me.
Your "assumptions" are WAY off. My tax burden is more than what you "calculate" it to be. I live in California, so my taxes are even higher than other parts of the country. Maybe I won't see a check. Maybe I will. Assuming I get a check, what I'm supposed to do with that money is SPEND IT to help the economy. To me, it almost seems to be my patriotic duty. When are you jerks on the right going to quit twisting facts to fit your narrow agenda and realize that when you lift up your fellow man, you lift all of society (including yourself).
How moral of you right-wing assclowns to worship the almight dollar bill, all the while screaming "Mine! Mine! Mine!" and stepping on those who are less fortunate than you.
No, actually, I did want to address one more thing: your use of the phrase "less fortunate".
This phrase is used to refer to people who are not what you might, even in a moment of great charity, call "winners." We're talking about single women with children they can't afford to raise, fathers who abandon their children, high school dropouts with no job prospects, drug addicts and winos begging for money for their next hit, and various other easily recognizable losers.
These people, according to the media and those on the left, are the "less fortunate."
You read about them in such offerings as, "Welfare reform will make life more difficult for the less fortunate," or "The rich can afford to pay a little more in taxes. After all, they have the money, and they should be willing to offer a helping hand to those less fortunate."
When you use the phrase "less fortunate", you are implying that those of us who managed to escape this lifestyle and who actually became productive citizens did so because we were simply "more fortunate." In other words, we were just flat lucky.
Robert Reich liked to refer to the top 20 percent of income earners in the United States as the "fortunate fifth." Bust out those dictionaries.
Mine defines fortunate as "deriving good from an unexpected source." Now think about this for a moment.
Is there anything "unexpected" about deriving good from hard work? Is there anything "unexpected" about deriving good from living a life free of illegal drugs and with only a moderate consumption fo alcohol? Is there anything "unexpected" about deriving good from staying in school, not getting, pregnant, developing marketable skills, and getting a job?
Hardly.
"Fortune" or "luck" has little to do with it. Luck, they say, is nothing less than opportunity met by preparation.
If you work hard, take advantage of the endless opportunities you have living in America, and keep your nose clean, then you will succeed, and it won't be because you were "fortunate" or "lucky". It will be because you made smart choices and worked hard.
So, what about the poor? Can we say that their situation in life is unexpected? Are they really the victims of "poor fortune?" Hardly.
There is nothing unexpected about not being able to put food on your child's table if you have that child when you KNOW you can't afford it. There is nothing unexpected about not being able to obtain or hold on to a good job if you can't bring yourself to work each and every day at the proper time, and if you don't have enough character to do what is expected of you, if not more, in return for your paycheck.
There is nothing unexpected about not being able to hold a job, and earn a living, if you make the choice to screw up your mind through the use of illegal drugs or alcohol - and it is a choice, at least initially. Barring mental or physical disaster, peoverty is not a matter of luck or fortune. It is the predictable result of poor decision making, irresponsibility, and laziness.
The poor are not the "less fortunate." They are, instead, the "more irresponsible." They put themselves there, and they drag their children into that status with them. They are the "less prepared," the "less diligent," and the "less able." They weren't unlucky. They did it to themselves.
No. In large part we're talking about the people whose parents and grandparents weren't allowed to vote because of the color of their skin, and were similarly denied higher educations and therefore excluded from the kinds of jobs that could generate greater wealth to be passed along to their children to give them the chance to do the same. We're talking about the descendants of people who were systematically denied suffrage and property rights. In most cases we're talking about people who most certainly did not "[do] it to themselves", and to suggest otherwise is just plain ignorant.
Is there anything "unexpected" about deriving good from hard work?
Let me ask you who does harder work: Donald Trump or someone who works on a fishing boat? The accumulation of wealth does not have -- and never has had -- anything to do with how "hard" the work is. It has to do with the social value of that labor.
Being poor is not synonymous with being lazy. Who do you think is more likely to being working two or more jobs: someone who has a comfortable lifestyle, or someone who needs to work that much harder just to scrape by?
That just doesn't wash. You have been fortunate
Given the disgusting profit driven health system, you were fortunate indeed that you avoided catastrophic illness, affliction or injury. Also, despite your belief you made it all by yourself, your country and fellow countrymen have been there supporting you every step of the way. Think about it. Try to get an education without a teacher. Try to suceed in any job wihout the team work of those around you.
It is unacceptable that a person can work a fulltime job and still be unable to provide for the basic needs of their family. I mean good on you for working your way up but not every hard working person can claw their way out of poverty. Not when workers are denied the basic right to a living wage.
And one last point. In order to gaurantee profitibility companies are subsidized and given major tax breaks (which are basically themselves undisclosed profits granted them their local communities). So why is all the pressure to succeed and all the blame for failure placed on the impoverished individual? Where is the enmity for the shirked obligation of employers to support the communities that supprt them?
But Solonswine, why should the state be anything like an electronics store? It's a totally inappropriate comparison on every level. The state isn't a commercial venture; the state has a responsibility to its citizens as citizens, not as customers; and we're not talking about a new television -- we're talking about national defense and promotion of the general welfare.
Finally, even if we do accept your comparison as a valid one, what you're describing is a bait-and-switch scam. Where is the bait-and-switch in reality? When did the state promise each individual citizen a proportionate individual good or service in return for taxes?
I only hope I live to see the day when the class warfare that idiots like Beck seem to encourage really hits the streets. The day when workers unite in solidarity to show these “I’ve got mine” fools that the only reason they’ve got anything is because of the citizens of this country who actually DO work for a living. A nationwide strike of the working class for even one day would bring them to their knees. I’m hearing that old song from 1970 in my head, “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”. Some lyrics need changing, but the message against oppression stays the same.
Hahaha! Sure...let's make the rich richer and give the people who work hard to make the rich even richer, a gun...
I think I'm a gun supporter now... ;)
OK...I was just kidding...don't call Homeland Security.
Beck is a moron ... his "spokesperson for dumb white guys" schtick is wearing a little thin.
Luckily, only about five people saw this, so.....
The Beaver has been on a Stalin kick for some time now. Apparently he read the back cover of some book on Stalin and now he knows just enough to be dangerous. I hope someday the CNN Headline Fluff will actually hire someone with an IQ higher than a soap dish.
Here's a simple equation that mathematicians have finally cracked.
The Beaver + Chance the Gardener = Glenn Beck. Stunning that up until now it hasn't been solved...but there it is
Brilliant!
Thank you doctor, now another question from our carefully controled audience.
Its easy to figure out why Beck used the Stalin reference .
He was loosing the debate with Frankel so he resorted to a lame insult so he could save face .
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0618-03.htm
one excerpt:
"If a nation wants a middle class, it must define it, desire it, and work to both create and keep it.
This is because a middle class is the creation of government participation (conservatives call it "interference") in the marketplace, by determining the rules of the game of business and of taxation, and by providing free public education to all. And it wasn't until 1776, when Thomas Jefferson replaced John Locke's right to "life, liberty and property" with "life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that the idea of a large class of working people having the ability to "pursue happiness" - the middle class - was even seriously considered as a cornerstone obligation of government. "
I get it. He's an academic. Still, he missed the opportunity to point out the moral and economic injustice, inflicted by the money grubbers, onto people who work full time jobs and still can't provide for their family, let alone lift them out of poverty.
Go for the jugular with cowards like Beck. When they call us socialists or communists or fascists; that's what gamblers refer to as their tell. It's the tell tale sign that they have nothing left in the tank but recalcitrant insults. We know they got nothing but economic fairey tales to spin as is evidenced by the abominable prosperity killing dirges of GOP economics. Deregulation and privatization has done nothing except place the wealth of the commons, the wealth of the many, into the hands of the few.
We know they got nothing when they trash talk like they do.
Haven’t you heard the latest? According to the Fox Business Network, the reason for recession is because of the impending Democratic control of The Administration. FEAR THE DEMS! They’re already blaming us 7 months before the election! Jon Stewart last night showed numerous clips from Fox Business Network, with 3 or 4 different pundits putting the blame on a supposedly perceived fear of the “fiscally irresponsible” Dems.
It will just be a matter of time before the rest of the wingnuts pick up on this one and start propagating the fear mongering tactics of Fox Business Network as a reason to not vote for the Democratic ticket this fall.
It is impossible for this guy to hide his contempt for the working classs isn't it? The sad thing is that this nimrod echoes, fairly acurately, the feeling of most republicans. (At least those who are there for economic reasons.) "An honest days pay for an honest day's work" my eye! It's too bad the 'Pubs didn't have MORE spokesmen like Beck, they probably disappear completely and then you'd see a REAL redistribution of wealth!
If we could manage to seperate church and state, 2/3 of republican voters would realize how little their party is doing for them. [The Pubs] would get trounced in every election. But the right has these poor (typically white, typically southern, and typically not very well eductaed) schleps wrapped around their fingers via religion. The other 1/3 of the party are the greedy rich b*st*rds stealing all the money while sending our jobs overseas and toasting guys like Beck when he makes comments such as these!
Ha! My eloquence shows no bounds.
ButI have no illusions about my abilities. I'm an amateur.
"pure, unadultered ideology"
Actually I'd call it "pure, unadultered greed." (Or is that what you meant?)
For many years the corporate pundits have dismissed any ideas they didn't like by labeling the source "pinko" or "commie" and this latest one, calling the guy, "Stalin". . . I am sure the American public already sees through this obnoxious dismissal.
Ah, yes... the trickle down Reaganomics ... Reminds me of how the poor got to share in the high from the opium from their masters... they went to the opium houses, and when the master came out to take a leak, they collected the urine and drink it to get the high.
Trickle? at what rate? the plants at the bottom will dry up if they only get the Reaganomics trickle... How dumb does the tax cutting president thinks we are... And how about the hidden tax of inflation that we're now experiencing from his quadrillion dollar deficit spending to fund his private, fraudulent war?