Matthews did not challenge Ehrlich's false suggestion about small business taxes
SUMMARY: On MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews did not challenge former Gov. Robert Ehrlich's false suggestion that President Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers expire would increase taxes on a large percentage of small businesses. In fact, Obama has proposed raising marginal income tax rates and reducing income tax deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, and according to the Tax Policy Center, just 2 percent of tax returns that reported small business income in 2007 are in the top two income tax brackets, which include all filers with taxable incomes that would be affected.
On the February 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews did not challenge former Gov. Robert Ehrlich's (R-MD) false suggestion that President Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers expire would increase taxes on a large percentage of small businesses. Matthews had asked Ehrlich for an "assessment of this fiscal decision to go to higher taxes for the wealthy," and, as part of his response, Ehrlich said, "This is all about class warfare. It's all about punishing success. It's anti-small business." Later, Ehrlich asserted that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "meant nothing to small business, basically. And now we're going to punish them through the tax code." In fact, Obama has proposed raising marginal income tax rates and reducing income tax deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, and according to the Tax Policy Center's table of 2007 tax returns that reported small-business income, 481,000 of those returns -- about 2 percent -- are in the top two income tax brackets, which include all filers with taxable incomes that would be affected.
The media have repeatedly advanced or failed to challenge the widespread revival of this falsehood from the 2008 presidential campaign about then-Sen. Obama's proposal to increase taxes on those making more than $250,000. As Media Matters for America documented, Sen. John McCain falsely claimed that "[i]f you are one of the 23 million small business owners in America who files as an individual rate payer, Senator Obama is going to raise your tax rates."
From the February 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Governor Ehrlich, your assessment of this fiscal decision to go to higher taxes for the wealthy -- well off, I should say -- and use it to put together a trust fund to begin to accumulate enough money to fund a real national health care system.
EHRLICH: Well, I disagree with the policy here, Chris, but the politics should not be surprising to anybody. And I agree with the last statement, in fact. This is the platform he ran on. This defines him as a political being. It reflects his voting record in the state legislature. It reflects his voting record in the United States Senate. It reflects the hard left positions he took during the campaign.
JOAN WALSH (Salon.com editor-in-chief): They're not hard left, sir.
EHRLICH: So, I'm not going -- oh, punishing success, raising capital gains.
WALSH: They're not hard left.
EHRLICH: Wait a second. I gave you your time. Let me have mine.
WALSH: I'm sorry, you're right. You're right.
EHRLICH: This is all about class warfare. It's all about punishing success. It's anti-small business. But just say it all comes together and they raise all the taxes on the dividends and capital gains. It doesn't begin, Chris, to pay for what he's talking about doing. That's the problem. The numbers don't add up.
MATTHEWS: OK, thank you. We will be right back with Bob Ehrlich, who doesn't believe in punishing success, and Joan Walsh, who believes in national health care. You're watching Hardball, only on MSNBC.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Joan, are you shocked -- I know you're a liberal in your heart, but are you shocked by these numbers? Here's the federal budget that he just gave us today, the new president, two billion in receipts, two billion in deficits, and four billion in spending. We're only taxing the country enough to pay for half the budget. The rest is borrowed. Not since World War II have we lived like this.
WALSH: Not since World War II have we had a crisis like this, Chris. I think the man inherited a terrible fiscal, domestic, international crisis. It's a time of war. He's actually putting war spending on the books, instead of the secret way that the Bush administration accounted for it. He's trying to do a lot. And I think he's looking to -- he's looking to bring the deficit down.
But most economists say for these next two years, we should be much less concerned about deficits than about the utter collapse of our economy. So --
MATTHEWS: Well, this is --
WALSH: -- sure, they're shocking numbers. They've been shocking for a while. They were shocking -- it was shocking when the Bush administration took a surplus --
MATTHEWS: Right. OK.
WALSH: -- and then ran us into a deficit.
MATTHEWS: Well, this is what Warren Buffett says we have to do, Governor, is over-leverage at the federal level. But a $4 trillion outlay level and $2 trillion deficit -- we're only taxing people enough to pay half the cost of government here.
EHRLICH: It doesn't work, Chris, as you know, and the stimulus wasn't the stimulus as well. You know, Chris, I would have been much more positive about this if the stimulus was actual stimulate -- was an attempt to actually stimulate the economy, get small businesses going. It meant nothing to small business, basically. And now we're going to punish them through the tax code.
Bad policy after bad policy. As you know, Chris, you could have done most of that spending through the regular appropriations process.
MATTHEWS: OK.
EHRLICH: It was just an excuse to get [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] and [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] to do their spending outside the regular process.
MATTHEWS: Do you like Rush Limbaugh, yes or no?
Maybe they own small businesses and are being taxed at 98% and are being forced to gay marry a socialist marsh mouse and it's all too overwhelming. As long as you're dealing in off-topic GOP talking points.
Off topic? Shows how smart you are. I took a direct quote from this article and commented on it. What's a matter, too afraid to tackle the issue at hand? Do you feel a need to comment on something more agreeable to your hypocritic-liberal freinds? Well, I'm sure they'll be here soon. Just give the hooters call and all your immoral friends will join you asap.
Phil,
You yake a quote from the article and then make no comment about it, as the Col. corectly pointed out, you spewed a bunch of right wing talking points that had nothing to do with the quote.
Good job though, I translated below.
Col, you forgot they eloped to Las Vegas on that hi-speed train.
You're right Oscar. No wonder all of those Democrats have such a hard time remembering to pay their taxes.They've got a lot of wild stuff going on in Philib's mind.
Col, do you ever read Bob Cesca?
You guys seem like you have a lot in common.
And they are honeymooning in government provided housing, got food stamps as a wedding gift, and one of them used unemployment health insurance to pay for a sex change operation.
And Phil is paying for all of it with those cripling taxes on his easy earned money.
So Phil,
When you say "Every nominee" you mean a couple of nominees, and when you say "many democrats" you a mean a few democrats, and when you say "Aren't they the ones" you mean someone else is the one, and when you say "typical liberal hypocrisy" you mean you don't know what you are talking about and when you say "you guys" you mean yourself.
Okay, I've got it now.
Thanks
No, I said what I meant. You have evidence of something to the contrary? Provide it.
What did you mean? You lied about everything you said, so it's hard to figure out!
That's because you're not very smart and can't read and ignore facts. Name the nominees who have NOT had some kind of tax problem and provide proof they did not have tax problems. Can't do that? Well, I am correct then.
"Name the nominees who have NOT had some kind of tax problem and provide proof they did not have tax problems. Can't do that? Well, I am correct then."
Absolutely, stunningly perfect Limbaugh/Hannity/Lib logic. If someone has not yet PROVEN they didn't do something, then they did it.
Breathtaking...
Or maybe I'm just not very smart...
RMS,you're just not very smart according to Phlibby's definition;
you're not very smart and can't read and ignore facts.
You must be able to read ,and ignore facts ,to pass the Phlibber IQ test.
Alas...
Okay Phil,
Geithner, Daschle and Solis have had a problem with taxes. Biden, Clinton, Gates, Holder, Salazar, Vilsack, Donovan, Chu, Duncan, Romer, Jackson, Orszag, Kirk, Rice, and Emanual have not. So that's 3 out of 20. I'm not great at math, but I don't think that is every nominee.
So you lied about that. Should I go on.
As for your request for "proof" that they didn't have tax problems, even for you that is stupid. But I'll leave that one alone.
I forgot to list Shinski and Napolitano!
SHISEKI, Arghhh!
Man I cannot type today, Shinseki!!!!!!
And Palin!
By that logic every republicain appointment by G. W. Bush was a thief who stole form our children and grandchildren on a daily baises. Unless you can provided 100% proof that this is not true I and many others will believe it. See how that works
That is the kind of logic that gets the United States in an illeagal war that turns a large portion of the world against us. This is also the kind of logic that gets ineffieciant peolple running government departments and agancies because government can not work right i will put people who can not do the job there. Also by this logic every Bush appointie is a murber untill you can prove 100% otherwise. Due to the war being illeagal every death in it is murder by the way.
To your reply to philib... you are spot on!
Got to love it when Republicans make the wild claims that government does not work... when it is they themselves that do all they can to get into government so that they can do the job wrong and screw up the way government works just so that they can claim that government does not work!
Another way to see this would be: you have a guy who hates Burger King with a passion who goes out of his way to get a job at a Burger King... gets hired, immediately begins to spit in the meat and dropping it on the floor, picking it back up, cooks it, fixes the sandwich up with now dirty meat, sells it to a customer, and then claims aloud that Burger King sucks as a fast food store because they sell food that has been spit on and fell on the floor....
This is the logic of the rightwing mind!
That is the kind of logic that gets the United States in an illeagal war that turns a large portion of the world against us. This is also the kind of logic that gets ineffieciant peolple running government departments and agancies because government can not work right i will put people who can not do the job there. Also by this logic every Bush appointie is a murber untill you can prove 100% otherwise. Due to the war being illeagal every death in it is murder by the way.
sorry about the double post
Considering that, unlike your vaunted party, many of the democrats in question withdrew their nominations, any claim to the moral high ground you think you have is vaporware.
Ya mean, besides Holder, Clinton, Gates and Lahood?
In other words, you want him to disprove something you failed to prove in the first place.
Nice try, little fella. Since when does the dimwitted-dittohead, lunatic-fringe likes of you get to call balls and strikes around here?
"...and provide proof they did not have tax problems."
I can't provide proof that you're not secretly planning to bomb the Pentagon, so, by your logic, you must be planning to bomb the Pentagon.
Come on philib... Until President Obama reneges on his promise that if you make LESS than $250,000 a year... your taxes will not increase one dime.... not one dime!
He said this in his speech to Congress the other night... in fact... he has said that through out the campaign.
I admit that the number changed ... but it seems that he has settled on $250,000...
But it seems that the media is all upset mainly because most of them fit in the category of making MORE than $250,000... so they know that they will be paying a bit more.
As for your assumption that liberals "expect others to pay taxes" but that they themselves do not... how dare you sir! Those 'liberals' that you speak of are hardly 'liberals'...
Geitner? Dashle? Hardly the bastion of liberalism... So your childish rant is rather amusing... especially when contasted to all those multinational corporations that are owned and run by pure conservatives...
Like Halliburton... which moved it HQ to Dubai so that it can makes it BILLIONS and not pay any taxes (in the millions) in the USA... and yet they were getting billions of our money...
And your only complaining about a few $10's of thousands?
Dude.... stop before you embarass yourself further
Capt, I'm afraid the Pres will have to renege on the tax statement in order to fulfill the deficit reduction statement. Haven't run all the figures yet, but I don't think there is enough $$ in the $250,000+ demographic to provide the necessary revenues to the government unless the tax rate becomes extremely high, or unless he finds other revenue streams.
Well, the rest of us aren't going to STOP paying taxes, even though we don't get an increase. If the economy recovers, tax revenue should increase across the board as more people go to work and start spending money again.
It's really just another version of Reagan's "rising tide lifts all boats"... except that the yachts will be sitting a little lower in the water this time.
If the economy doesn't recover, it won't matter anyway.
"If the economy recovers, tax revenue should increase across the board as more people go to work and start spending money again."
The economy will recover because people are going to get back to work, our social safety nets will be reinvested in and people will start spending, which will create the demand for small businesses to get crackin' again. It's a virtuous cycle and it exposes the disgusting conservative lie that this bill doesn't stimulate the economy.
He plans on using pay go as much as possible this means pay as you go or in simple terms cut what you can and if program x has an increase program y will have an equal or greater cut. This is how President Clinton got the nation from then record defficits to a surplus. The Repug in congres did not want this but could not get it through with out a veto.
It's not a question of cutting what you can, it's about ending what does not work and finding what does work for people. That's what government is about; working for us.
Capt, the number changed while you were writting that. For me, it's $200,000 NOT $250,000.
"As for your assumption that liberals "expect others to pay taxes" but that they themselves do not... how dare you sir! Those 'liberals' that you speak of are hardly 'liberals'..."
Get real. It is proven fact that liberals earn less than anyone else (in general). That is why they can't afford to buy radio stations and keep unpopular shows on the air. When you got something besides opinion to contridict my opinion, I'll welcome it with open arms. If you simply want to deny what my opinion is based on your opinion and expect me to change... stop before you embarass yourself further.
"It is proven fact that liberals earn less than anyone else (in general)"
Really? You can prove that?
I do agree with one of your sentiments. It has been mostly Troglodytes who can afford to buy up large clumps of radio stations to keep their lowbrow propaganda shows on the air.
Part of the reason for that is that as people earn more money they tend to become conservitive to try and make more and keep more. Greed id the key to that.
But you also have to factor in all the uneducated rednecks like Joe the "Plumber", plus the working class Evangelicals who consistently vote against their own economic best interests because it's what Jesus would do.
The funny thing is mot of these right wing churches have the types of vending in them that Jesus over turned. Jesus at best was a progressive and slightly socialist. He even said about taxes render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers render unto God what is Gods. This means to not only pay your taxes but taxes are good.
For me, it's $200,000 (Phlipper)
Something tells me you've got as much to fear as Joe the Pretend Plumber. Unless you can find some way to work 10 shifts a day at Taco Bell.
It is proven fact that liberals earn less than anyone else
You're just being silly now. I thought we were all Limousine Liberals drinking champagne and lattes? Does "proven fact" just mean what Rush tells you?
It is also proven fact that 83.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Hilarious! 83.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Love it.
"That is why they can't afford to buy radio stations and keep unpopular shows on the air."
This has to be one of the most moronic sentences ever written!
Ever heard of Chicago? I live near it... there is a radio station there that goes by the call letters WCPT...
It runs progressive/liberal talk all day.... and here's the interesting part...
Not only is it in the top 5 of the stations in the city in ratings... it makes money too!
KPOJ and KPHX (Portland and Phoenix) same thing!
Do yourself a favor... and stop listening to reichwing talk about how liberal talk can't survive or function...
In Columbus, OH there was a progressive station that was making money and was widely popular there (in the top 3 if I remember correct)... but the owners sold out like the chicken littles they were... the station was replaced with Christian/rightwing garbage... this station is now near the bottom in ratings.
As for the 'fact' that liberals make less than anyone else .... in general...
Your point? (I considered guessing here for you, but I'll expect you to fill me in on where your going with this?)
Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Lucas, Oprah make less than everyone else, eh, philly fanatic? Good luck makin' that case, little fella.
Dismissed.
I saw the exchange with this condescending jerk last night, and he managed to slip this little lie into the conversation two or three times.
The troglodytes have latched onto this utterly false talking point because it works with their knuckledragging base... the ones who follow in Joe the Plumber's greasy wake, drooling and panting.
MMFA is back on the "Hate Matthews" warpath again... I thought he might get a break after defending the Democrat Party the other day.
Yes, that was great! Matthews nailed Issa for referring to the (non-existent) "Democrat Party." I hope he continues to do it.
I cheered when I saw that... Matthews at his best. Reminded me of the time he tore Michelle Malkin a new one.
Chris definitely has his moments.
Matthews does well against some of the real partisan haters like Malkin. The problem I have with Matthews is that he has no credibility, after years of lying and stalking Hillary Clinton.
Dawuss
Wouldn't it be bias to ignore misinformation because Matthews defended the Democratic Party recently? If he doesn't do his job properly and lets misinformation go unchallenged, then it should be noted. By your logic someone who allows equal amounts of misinformation from both sides would never get mentioned by any watchdog site.
You guys really have some chutzpah to criticize Chris Matthews. Isn't he the same guy who blurted out "Oh God" when Jindal came out for the republican rebutal to Obama's address? Also, the last I heard his leg still "tingles" whenever he hears Obama.
I think the Republitoads blurted "Oh God" after Jindal the Exorcist was done.
So you're unhappy because MMFA is not giving somebody a pass for misinformation because of something that person said before? You don't want consistency?
Sure, I want consistency. How about criticizing ALL media misinformation involving politics, not just the misinformation that MMFA decides to criticize to push their liberal agenda? If you want REAL reporting on media misinformation, visit factcheck.org.
Read the mission statement.
How about you get it through your head that MMFA covers conservative misinformation?
You can go elsewhere if you don't like MMFA's mission.
Mathews is also the same guy who helped put Bush in the White House by lying about Gore during campaign 2k.
Nice try, little fella. Tweety's the guy who spent six years gushin' like a schoolgirl with his man crush on shrub.
Counterfeit carrier landing/mission accomplished is exhibit A.
Dismissed.
what i think your all missing here is where is this money coming from? YOUR CHILDREN, most of which aren't born or don't affiliate with any party. even if we could pay for this 3.6t dollar debacle (which we can't, not even if we tax 100% of everything over 75k) but thats not the point. your all caught up in making fun of phil here whos intentions seem to be good, not well researched but good. and if we are being honest there are quite a few more possible scandels within his appointments.
The point is that we were never treated to a Lewinski-scale dissection of Bush's many scandals on TV every night.
If the press had spent a tenth of the time examining Bush's WMD lies as they spent looking for Monica's stained dress, we never would have invaded Iraq.
i believe i said radio ,tv, and print. there seem to be two places you forgot to mention. but that just weakens your point huh.
Not really. The New York Times was among the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq War, and the Washington Post is a mere shadow of the paper that exposed Nixon's crimes. And radio? Aside from the pathetically few liberal talk radio stations and NPR, that medium is a defacto 24-7 infomercial for the GOP.
so you list 2 semi conservative news papers and one progressive radio station, good call. i don't know where you live but where i am there is a consistent voice from most perspectives if you look hard enough. and this is print, radio and tv. i know you may not believe me but if you open your mind to all the sides you'll see the ones that you don't just hate.
Just where was your concern when Bush was invading Iraq and cutting sweetheart tax deals for the wealthy, thereby turning budget surpluses into unprecedented deficits?
It has been conservative fiscal irresponsibility that got us into this mess, now it's going to take massive liberal investment in people to get us out.
my concern was right there with yours. and to blame solely the repubs is not fair at all. and i think you know that roundhouse. there's plenty of blame to push around. also please highlight the points in this massive spending bill that helps people who have been responsible with there money and bills, and not the failed or over spenders.
Who solely blamed Repubs? That was your reading of it. Although, the Repubs controlled everything for six years, the blame fits. No, the problem is with a radical conservative ideology that guts our sense of togetherness and strips away our protections from unrestrained markets.
guts our sense of togetherness? What the hell does that mean? to a liberal, it means take from those that earn and give to those that don't.
Wrong. The conservative mind thinks that we are nation of individuals out to get as much as they can for themselves before they even think about helping someone else. The you're on your own conservative crowd guts our sense of togetherness by getting elected with the sole objective of destroying government's ability to good work for the people because you believe public aid is coddling.
Liberals believe that we are in it together, that to help each other is to help ourselves because we are greater than the sum of our parts.
Every time a conservative gripes about taxes or effective government spending they are gutting that sense of common purpose that binds us together.
that's a load of crap. conservatives contribute to charities and worthwhile organizations all the time, if you can prove otherwise, do so. Destroying governments ability to do good work? what? that's because it's way to big and bureaucratic, and inefficient. Govt. should have a limited role in our lives, then it works best for everyone. And public aid is not coddling, it's often abused, and the bigger it is, the more abused it is. And who do you think will pay for it? I know liberals want to hike taxes on the rich, or make them pay their fair share, their favorite buzzword, but I got news for ya, there ain't enough money to do it.
As stated, cons are out to get as much as they can for themselves before they lift a finger to help another. Disprove it.
Your stereotypes of big government belong in a museum of useless relics. Given the inefficiency and unwillingness of private insurance companies to provide affordable, comprehensive insurance to all Americans, it would seem the bloat resides in corporate profits.
Given the corruption of the private school bus company that got busted in New York recently, it would seem the abuse is in the profit motive.
But really your obsession with the tiny minority of individuals who game public assistance is the most amusing part of your whole stereotypical view of the world. Your pessimism for your fellow Americans' work ethic is sickening. You should be ashamed, you are to be pitied, T. In a mere matter of decades your conservative nonsense will be as repugnant to future voters as Jim Crow laws are to the voters of today.
incredible phony. you make a baseless lie about conservatives and then expect me to disprove it. all it means is that your liberal income redistribution is built on jealousy, envy, anger, fear and lies. tell conservatives how mean and evil they are so you can justify your own ineptness. Sorry, I don't look to the govt to bail me out or give me money, I earn my own. Try it and you won't have to try and steal somebody elses.
Cons are out for themselves, first. It's a fact.
You're lying again. You would be nowhere without the vast interconnected web of handed down knowledge, and the government funded infrastructure that enables it.
You have truly done very little all on your own. From potty training to learning to type (so you can annoy liberals) you were handed everything you need by people. You refusal to understand that you rely, daily, on co-operation is what inhibits you from being a part of the historical march of progress.
But no longer will the tiny radical conservative minority control the terms of the public debate. Your worldview is failing to persuade the majority of Americans. Get used to it.
your facts have no backup, so you can keep repeating it on this liberal forum and never be challenged, just like you like it no doubt. and I never said I have done everything on my own, who in the hell would ever say that. But the way you use that to justify massive liberal spending programs is just ignorant. small, limited govt with low taxes is the way to grow any economy, Bush didn't do that, he grew govt more in his term than anyone since LBJ, and look what that has done to us? So don't tell me how true, fiscal conservatism is bad for the economy, because you have no clue what you're talking about. on a side note, I did laugh at your (so you can annoy liberals) line, pretty good.
If you run across any Republican in Congress today that is a fiscal conservative, let me know. Their actions speak so loudly I can't hear a word they're saying.
Funny how productivity grew and prosperity thrived for more people in LBJ's and FDR's liberal America than Reagan's.
"I never said I have done everything on my own, who in the hell would ever say that. "
" Sorry, I don't look to the govt to bail me out or give me money, I earn my own. "
Looks like you did. Even in earning money you rely on others. What a mess you are.
you are too clueless to understand what I meant because you obviously look to the govt for assistance. well I don't. And I never have. I have had plenty of help and encouragement, but sorry, not from government intervention. sure, i have paid plenty of taxes for roads, schools, police, fire, etc - if that's what you're referrring to. But I don't get any handouts, nor do I rely on "social safety nets to be reinvested" just so I can tell myself it's not my fault at all, but the greedy rich cons.
You are all too easy to understand. You're an entrenched partisan conservative.
Awesome dude. So you attended and paid for your own schooling? I mean k-12 as well as collage. No government help at all so no breaks for in state tuition at any time either. No grants or loans no doubt. No government scholarships of any kind either.
See the fact is you HAVE had help from the government, you get it every stinkin day of your life but refuse to acknowledge it. From those things you mentioned to safety laws for work and even the Internet you are using now. All government aid in one form or another. I know, I know, all that is ok because you PAID for it and all of those others didn't. They did not pay any taxes (except every time they purchased just about anything) so they don't deserve it. Oh, did you work when you were 7 and going to school? Were you paying taxes then? Oh but that's ok because your parents did and we all know THOSE PEOPLE didn't have parents that paid taxes. They are from a log line of no tax paying people or they are immigrants. As said earlier the arguemnts are stale and easily seen as false. Get over it, man.
And if you're so sure this bill encourages the irresponsible, why don't you show us those points?
And really, what do you expect? How is someone who gets raped by a for profit health industry supposed to remain responsible with their money when they're bankrupted by unexpected illnesses?
i would but the 1000 plus pages won't fit here. wow what a shame a company making profits what a disgrace. thanks roundhouse you just saved me from my ruthless capitalistic thoughts.
i bow to you and your overpowering arguements.
Guess your vow to stay relevant was as meaningless as your implication that liberals hate capitalism.
i was not implicating anything, your talking about raping of the people and just paint over health care with this broad brush. and then talk down at me. i just fundamentaly disagree with the spending, all of it. and please if i'm wrong show me the liberals or the republicans for that matter that aren't attacking capatalism right now. i hope you don't think that i mean dems, when i say libs, there's a dif. just like reps and cons.
Really? A broad brush?
Among this year's large rate increases on the individual market:
• Anthem Blue Cross in California has notified about 80% of its 800,000 individual policyholders of double-digit increases, many above 30%. Spokesman Ben Singer says rising medical costs are prompting the increases.
• Blue Cross of Michigan is seeking state approval for a 56% increase in individual premiums. Spokesman Andy Hetzel says the company needs to offset losses stemming from state rules making it the sole insurer required to take all applicants.
• Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oregon will raise rates for approximately 10,000 Washington state customers by 27.1% on March 1.
People are losing their jobs along with any healthcare plan they had through their employer and prices for individual policies are skyrocketing nation wide. Kinda takes the care out of healthcare, yet you call Obama's jobs bill a raping?
Exactly what aspect of unrestrained capitalism do you defend the most? The part where the working poor get screwed or the part where the leisure class walk away with disproportionate shares of the wealth?
There is a better way to conduct our capitalist economy. A way that values the labor of everyone in every economic spectrum, a way that protects individuals from the wealthy writing laws that tip the scales in their favor. It's called liberalism and it's about being protectors of the common wealth.
i'm sorry if disagreement is not relavent but i could point at any spot on the bill, and find something i don't like. personally i think an 18% cut in spending across the board, yes even defense, is the way to go.
Obviously you can't point to any spot, otherwise, you would have.
Your problem is you can't actually defend your position. You can only repeat what Boehner, Limbaugh, Gingrich and McConnell have been instructed to say.
"...that helps people who have been responsible with there money and bills"
Well, if it does what it's supposed to do, it might keep them from joining the ranks of the unemployed and then losing their own homes. It might also keep their property values from dropping 30%.
agian you ignore the facts this helps no one who has been responsible in anyway shape or form
please use my full quotes for your examples, you look a little foolish picking pieces of my statements when its just a few posts above
It has not been fiscal Conservative irresposibility that got us here. And if you have a problem with W cutting deals with the wealthy, blame him. I don't think many Cons would honestly consider W to be a fiscal Con. RINO maybe, but not conservative. Look at the deficits he brought, no self described Con would approve of them. The only con policy he was good at was tax breaks. Period.
Bingo. it's not because we are undertaxed, it's because we overspend, Bush cut taxes and did not cut spending. where do liberals think we are going to get all this money? do they think we can put it all on the backs of the top wage earners and all is hunky dorey, soak the rich. it aint' gonna happen. We cannot sustain huge govt., we cannot afford it.
It is gonna happen, it's going work and we're going to be better for it. We tried your tax cuts for the wealthy nonsense and it failed. We tried your overspending on war and it failed.
It's time to invest in people and infrastructure because the return will be immeasurable in regard to our long term stability.
i am not opposed to investing in infrastructure or even some govt spending, right now the govt, is about the only one who can. but you cannot raise taxes during this massive recession, on anyone, it will only do more damage. we can't spend our way out of this.
So you propose to cut taxes and invest in the commons. That's fiscal silliness. But in case you missed it, Obama plans to cut taxes on 95% of us.
if you get beyond your hatred for "rich" people, you'd see that raising taxes on those that already pay over 50% of the taxes in this country will not get you liberal eutopia as you think. those "rich" will find ways around it, or they will move their businesses out of high tax areas, look at california, it's so damn high taxed that businesses are leaving every day. then where is this revenue you expect, it doesn't materialize, that is the problem.
If you'd get past your disdain for the poor you would see that liberals value labor in ways that cons simply cannot fathom.
Again, tax cuts did not create broad prosperity anyway. And don't blame high taxes in this economy for businesses going under or leaving the state. That's ridiculous.
arguing economics with you is futile, you think govt creates wealth, which is so damn asinine it's incredible. who do you think employs "labor"? both are an integral part of any company's success, if you punish one in favor of the other it only hurts both, why you can't see that is also incredible. you think you can tax the job creators to the hilt with no consequences, except some gleeful joy you get in taking their money and spending it on stupid liberal social engineering programs to throw at people who don't appreciate what they haven't earned. recipe for disaster, wake up.
You're sputtering, making up stuff that was never said and repeating the same old tired conservative junk about liberal tax policy.
You're a total joke. If you think starving the common wealth and transferring it to private interests is not a recipe for disaster, you have been sleep-walking your way through the decades since Reagan.
i love your terms, now it's starving the common wealth. where do you come up with these phrases? must be some liberal think tank that thinks these gems up, well done though. But it's typical liberalism, they never really want you to know what they really want because they could never sell that to the general public, so they dress it up in cute phrases that sound good, but are far from that in the details.
"typical liberalism" as defined by you exists mainly in the minds of the con artists and their believers. Most people want their government to provide for the common welfare; they want it to be effective in doing that. And anything that doesn't to be eliminated. This isn't any "ism", it's common sense.
Dismissing a point of view by giving it a "liberal" label has become an excuse not to think
Way to project. As if the American people would really want what the cons are selling. In the name of the free market, no protection from companies that distribute tainted peanut butter or leaded toys. No healthcare for people who are sick but can't afford the price tag.
Yeah, right. Everybody wants a price tag attached to every aspects of their lives.
Please. Liberals are about protecting the things we all have in common; health, education and opportunity. Liberals are about protecting consumers from dirty water. Liberals are about protecting working families from unsafe work environments and abuse.
What are cons for? Anything goes? No thanks. That's why you guys dres up your tripe in that personal responsibility sales job, that quite literally translates into, "what you lost your job, health insurance costs are rising nationally at a rate of 15% to 20% for individuals? Sorry. Can't do nothin' for ya man. You're on your own."
Yeah right. Liberals hide their agenda. You're ridiculous.
baloney. you can't sell "steal from the rich", so you say cons want to gut togetherness, you can't sell the word "taxes", so you go for "invest" instead. you can't sell huge govt bureacratic programs so you accuse those who want small govt as wanting to "starve the common wealth". you're not fooling anyone with your flowery words, people know crap when they see it.
Funny that. Those very principles of liberalism sustained us through the Great Depression and built the greatest expansion of the middle class in the history of the world. Those very principles of togetherness defeated the Nazi's, sent a man to the moon and brought us rural electrification.
We always do our best as a nation when we share a sense of common purpose.
You really sound like little more than a bitter contrarian.
more baloney. I have never seen you post that you are in favor of massive income redistribution but that is your agenda, socialism, whatever you call it. but you hide it in all sorts of magnanamous and lofty sounding platitudes because you know what an ultra far left liberal such as youself advocates would never fly in this country, and is most likely unconstitutional. so you think you're smart in disguising it as gutting togetherness and starving the wealth and investing in commons, or whatever nonsense you can dress it up as, but a pig is still a pig, despite lipstick. most of us know better, at least those of us not stupid enough to buy into such idiocy.
What programs are liberals advocating that you think won't fly with the American people?
Actually, unless you missed the massive thumping that the conservatives have been taking, it would be easy to see that most of us disagree with you and your corporate authoritarian nuttery.
You can call it whatever you want; we're taxing the rich.
We use "taxes" in conjunction with "invest" as in "we're going to use tax dollars to invest in our future".
I call it money going to our government to do all sorts of things (hopefully something that benefits the American people).
You're full of crap. Most Americans don't see gov't as an evil and separate entity. Government can and should help Americans who need it.
oh goody, well I need $100,000 by noon tomorrow, if the government is there to get me what i need, then where do I pick it up?
At the end of the week, after you actually did some physical labor to earn it.
That's not a need; it's a want. I'll tell you what, quit your job and go on welfare. You can be a welfare queen.
how do you know it's not a need? if i have charged by credit cards up to the max and been irresponsible in my spending, then I need it, it's not some want anymore. Isn't that what liberalism is, you know, reinvesting in the safety nets. well, if I don't get the money, I will fall right through that net, so how can you tell me no?
That's not liberalism, but a pretty good description of the behavior that drove the deregulated market of the conservative wet dreams come true, including Paulson's no strings attached give away.
At least that big scary liberal Barrack is asking for, and giving in return, accountability.
hell it's not. it's typical liberal social programs gone amok. sure, they all sound all helpful and grand when leftist lawmakers think up ways to get more money to Washington while they ride around in their limousines, more money means more power. yet the problems always come in implementation, we need more money then they will really work right, put up in some govt bureacrats office or in some cabinet to get lost and just refunded and funded more, no accountability or feasibility, or means testing, just more $$$, and then when they are so screwed up, or so damn inefficient and wasteful, well, fund them some more, tell the people how they can't be cut or trimmed, need more taxes. it's a vicious cycle. fact is it's all about power and money to Washington, it's diddly sqaut about really helping anyone, they could give a damn, it's the great liberal con game played by Pelosi and others. Keep their constituents beholden to them, promise them massive giveaways, tell them how the rich are bad, and only good Democrats are looking out for the working folks......what a scam liberalism is. amazing.
Nah. That's what conservatives do with the exception of raising taxes; they cut taxes instead [on the wealthy].
Not all rich people are bad. Only the ones that are conservative.
1982 called. They want their empty rhetoric and emotional appeals to our basest instincts back.
You have become an utterly discomfited reactionary. It's pathetic.
Truth is liberalism has been the engine that has brought about the best our country has to offer, while conservatives were dragged along, in opposition to progress, kicking and screaming, like the petulant children they are at heart.
The history is clear as bell. Liberals brought us pensions, retirements and social security so working folks could retire with dignity. And business still thrived despite the selfish protests of the conservative whackadoos.
Liberals brought consumer safety laws so we could live without fear of being poisoned at the dinner table. And business still thrived despite the gripes of the free marketers.
Liberals brought us the GI Bill that educated a nation of men and women, who would have otherwise never been able to get a college degree. Those men and women took their knowledge forth and laid down the foundations of long term prosperity for all and created the innovations we still enjoy today. And still business thrived despite conservative calls of socialism.
So get you weak a** crap about liberalism out of our face you vulgar corporate authoritarian. It it ain't playin' to nobody.
Here's my idea: Quit your job and go on welfare; use the money to pay down your credit card debt.
That won't work. Thanks to James friends, you can't quit your job to get on welfare. You have to be laid off to get the basics, and you have to be laid off due to outsourcing to get a few dollars more. He's just recycling republican talking points in the hopes that some liberal here doesn't know the kind of processes his party of choice put in place to make it difficult to make a living.
You want $100,000 by noon tomorrow. You clearly don't need it.
put your money where your mouth is, i need it. i thought liberals cared about people and weren't greedy
No you don't. There isn't a person (non corporation since I know you are anal) in the world who needs $100,000. We care about those who aren't greedy, you clearly are.
I might need $100,000 to pay for college education, once I decide to transfer out-of-state
We haven't tried tax cuts for everybody and reduced spending. Conservatism. And BO promised he will raise taxes on those making 250,000 (as of now) who are also working Americans, and the war was certainly not my idea. IMO, this spending bill could've been avoided by just reducing payroll taxes. It returns more money to the people who rightly earned it at every level. The rest of your post is a guess.
What a mess. Just double down on the stupidity, Dave. More tax cuts, less sending. It's as if you cons are not capable of fresh ideas or learning from the past. These times call for massive public investment in people and the commons.
Get over it.
You cons had the reigns of government and you rode us over a cliff with the exact same dogma you keep repeating and repeating and repeating. You lose.
As I've heard from the BO admin, more money to the people means they'll spend it. Is BO doubleing down? Tax cuts equal more money in the pockets of those you scream about, the American working families. Less spending means less debt. Public investment doesn't sound like a stimulus package, it sounds like more spending for the sake of spending. And of course, the rich, 250,000 bucks or more will be happy to pick up the tab for that. Nice job.
Obama is talking about getting money into people's hands by putting tem to work on projects that benefit us all. Don't know what you think you're hearing.
no he's not. what about food stamps and unemployment benefits? they are being sold as economic stimulators direct into the economy?
Food stamps have a greater return on revenue than any tax cut, by a factor of at least 4. Unemployment benefits keeps people in their homes and that's a good thing because empty house that sit vacant does nothing but harm for neighborhoods.
What jamesb fails to grasp is the simple reality that the rich own a higher percentage of the wealth since the robber baron days. And that is what precipitated the Great Depression.
The pendulum is finally swinging back in favor of the common man. And jamesb's delusions of riches are at risk and he's panicking.
why would I panic, I am not rich. But I have worked for rich people before so I am not naive enough to think that what doesn't negatively affect their bottom line isn't going to affect me. because I know it is, and it will. liberals will never understand that.
So you understand certain forms of togetherness and approve of corporate dependency. We get it. You're a fake out to convince us that the interests of the elite are the same as the interests of working people.
and you are either a liar to cover for asinine arguments, or clueless, or both. why don't you address specifically what I said. I never said they had the same interests, but if you attempt to hurt severly those that create the jobs, who do you think suffers einstein? you can't be that stupid not to know?
Who's talking about severely hurting anyone? Again that's a figment of your violent imagination.
Your view of taxes as punishment are worn out. They went out with Abu Graib.
Don't worry your pretty little head. As long as there is consumer demand, jobs will be created.
True that.
I'm hearing that BO is going to tax those making more than 250,000. So if those projects that "benefit us all"require 1,000,000 people making 75,000, Dave still picks up the tab. What are you hearing?
I'm hearing a resentful old an who thinks he is beyond reliance on the rest of us.
old man, not old an
I'm hearing joe the plumber claiming he's gonna make a quarter of a million dollars a year taking a rotor rooter to my crap clogged toilet.
All through the campaign trail Obama said he would cut taxces for Americans who make under 250K. Nothing has changed.
Spending is a better stimulus than tax cuts and tax cuts can't repair a bridge. And whether our government uses tax cuts or spending as a stimulus, we're still going to increase the deficit.
The stimulus bill that President Obama signed Tuesday includes $116 billion in tax credits that will come largely through reduced tax withholding from paychecks, over two years. That will put $8 a week into most Americans’ paychecks.
whoopee, thanks!
Ah, you scoff, but that's 4 cups of Starbucks Coffee!
That's an extra $400 for the year. Use it to buy stuff or pay off debt. There will also be another tax cut for those who make under 250K at the end of 2010.
Who was the last conservative to do that?
That will further weaken Medicare and Social Security and create problems for Americans who depend on those programs.
i think you misunderstood i blame all politicians for this mess both sides. but i do have to disagree with you in your thinking that there are still conservatives in this congress or the last. simple proof who was your canidate for pres?
Can't disagree with you at all. And the fact there are no Conservatives in Congress, there's a few but I feel they've been neutered by the Bush admin's view of Conservatism. McCain, while not my first choice, was my pick, and I held my nose while I voted, but only because BO's stand was "I'm coming to get you, Dave". IMO, Newt was the last true Conservative in congress.
Whatever. Reagan did the same exploding deficit crap as W. Bush was the ultimate consequence of conservative governance.
Really? ST Ronnie had the deficits we have now? And before you tell me what the consequences are for a true fiscal conservative administration, a real conservative wishes to cut taxes for everybody, which is why I wasn't thrilled with the BO nomination...or the McCain one for that matter.
Really! He did! He even had a cute little term for them: strategic deficits.
Clinton was the best fiscal conservative our country has had.
And actually, beside the fact that Obama is working to enact the biggest middle class tax cut in our history, it is indeed the wealthy who benefit most from the public investments that our taxes fund.
Really dude. Taxation didn't cause massive layoffs, home foreclosures or the banking implosion. Tax cuts didn't create broad prosperity. So what good are tax cuts other than they make a good excuse for conservatives to destroy our government's ability to provide good roads, schools and vital services like criminal courts, banking system and scientific research?
Your philosophy of taxation is thoroughly corrupt, Dave
It has not been fiscal Conservative irresposibility that got us here. And if you have a problem with W cutting deals with the wealthy, blame him. I don't think many Cons would honestly consider W to be a fiscal Con. RINO maybe, but not conservative. Look at the deficits he brought, no self described Con would approve of them. The only con policy he was good at was tax breaks. Period.
Were all those folks who supported Bush from 2001 till 2006, conservatives, fiscal conservatives or RINO?
Based on the high level of support for this "non-fiscal conservative", it's hard to tell
2001 - 86% of House Republicans supported Bush........2002 - 82% of House Republicans supported Bush.....2003 - 89% of House Republicans supported Bush.....2004 - 80% of House Republicans supported Bush.....2005 - 81% of House Republicans supported Bush.....2006 - 85% of House Republicans supported Bush.....2007 - 72% of House Republicans supported Bush.....2008 - 64% of House Republicans supported Bush.
2001 - 94% of Senate Republicans supported Bush.....2002 - 89% of Senate Republicans supported Bush.....2003 - 94% of Senate Republicans supported Bush.....2004 - 91% of Senate Republicans supported Bush.....2005 - 85% of Senate Republicans supported Bush.....2006 - 85% of Senate Republicans supported Bush.....2007 - 78% of Senate Republicans supported Bush.....2008 - 70% of Senate Republicans supported Bush.
http://www.cq.com/graphics/weekly/2008/12/15/wr20081215-48partisan-prezsupport-bkgrd.pdf
"also please highlight the points in this massive spending bill that helps people who have been responsible with there money and bills, and not the failed or over spenders"
Are you saying that all those fired do to the recession deserved it? Are you saying they are all "the failed and over spenders"? That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Yes, let's blame the workers. It's all their fault. Forget that they are producing more and at a faster rate then at any other time, they are to blame. Forget a banking industry that ignored all of the warning signs of what was coming, blame the workers and the mortgage holders.
Forget that the stimulus bill will put many of these people back to work. It shouldn't because they deserved to lose their jobs. Forget that the bill will extend benefits for the unemployed, they should be able to find another job right away and without anyone creating new jobs. Just. Plain. Dumb.
actually i was talking about the banks and aig freddy fanny people who bought houses they couldn't afford etc. i happen to be one of those who lost their job thank you very much. and there is very little as far as jobs that will be created with this spending bill most of the jobs talked about already exist and hopefully will continue to. spending to cure spending doesn't work, sometimes companies and people need to go bankrupt, and then start over from scratch. those assets should be divided and aquired through the private sector.
"You guys really have some chutzpah to criticize Chris Matthews."
Misinformation is misinformation. It's called "consistency".
Matthews didn't give misinformation. As the article says, he didn't "challenge" misinformation that was given. Either way, here is the point: taxes will be raised.
In other words, you have no case and no clue so you're gonna try to shift the focus and hope nobody notices.
Nice try. No sale.
Nice argument. And you say i'm the one without a case? My point is that Matthews is one of the media's biggest cheerleaders for Obama. And, this cite tries to bash him for not challenging someone on what they say is misinformation? They better be careful, Matthews might change his mind and start getting tingly feelings when he sees Sarah Palin.
Game, set, match. Checkmate. The fat lady has sung. Game over. Uno. Can you think of any others?
As if.
Tweety was fawnin' all over toxic tommy delay the other night. Tweety spent the first six years fawinin' over shrub. He loves Rudy. Tweety loves whomever is in front of him at that moment, so your factually-challenged fantasies about Tweety being a cheerleader for Obama don't hold water any better than that sieve ya call a head, schmuck.
Nice try, little fella. Again, you have no case, no clue and the next "point" you make will be your first.
I'll kick your clueless cabeza to the curb and leave it. Just remember the rubbish men come early.
Always a pleasure.
Wow, and the insults fly. I thought we were having a civilized debate. Haven't you heard that the first one to resort to name-calling is the one who can't think of a intelligent argument? Gee, seems like that would be you......."little fella."
Who made that up? Beyond the name-calling he effectively challenged what you said.
What insults? Ya come in here talkin' trash ya can't back up, I see ya, raise ya, call your bluff, tell ya to turn 'em over and, surprise, surprise, like most gops, you've got bupkis. Gee, now who coulda seen that comin'?
Allow me to refresh your memory since I've clearly been goin' too fast for ya, little fella.
The topic of this thread is Matthews, once again, letting some shrub shill spew factually-challenged, gop-slop nonsense talking points with no basis in fact.
In this case, it happened to be Ehrlich. Tonight, it'll be someone else. At least.
You, as is clearly your custom, come in here claimin' "Matthews didn't give misinformation. As the article says, he didn't "challenge" misinformation that was given. Either way, here is the point: taxes will be raised."
As for the first part, Again, Matthews let yet another gop-slop spewin' shrub shill dole out his delusional dreck with impunity and without interruption while failing to challenge him on his psychotic slop.
Those facts aren't in dispute.
As for the second part, you claim that, "Either way, here is the point: taxes will be raised."
Stop the presses. Obama only said he was gonna raise taxes on the top wage earners and restore them to the same rates they were paying when Clinton was President, the economy was in good shape, the Reagan/Bush Recessions had been weathered, the Reagan/Bush Deficits had been overcome, we had a record budget surplus, the WTC was still standing and we were a nation at peace.
Alas, after eight years of brain-dead, bush-league incompetence - the first six with a cluelessly-corrupt and corruptly-clueless, rubber-stamp gop-slime Congress, none of those things remain true.
Obama was just making good on his campaign promise. Of course, you being a gop and all, I could see how something like that could throw ya.
All of which, once again, leaves you just another gop-slop spewin' shrub shill with no case, no clue and no reason tryin' desperately to shift the focus in the hope that nobody notices.
I noticed. I always do. I always will.
It's been fun.
"Taxes will be raised"
Isn't that kind of like saying "People will die"?
Jpeagle
"Matthews didn't give misinformation. As the article says, he didn't "challenge" misinformation that was given."
I know. And misinformation is misinformation, and that's what this site reports on. That's why there's no "chutzpah" involved.
Listening to Robert Ehrlich reminded me of watching John McCain last fall during his "redistributor in chief" campaign. McCain trotted out on the stage his team of economic advisors in an attempt to convince the american voters that Obama's economic plan would be bad for the country. As an example he called on one of his advisors to explain how Obama's tax plan would break the backs of small business. The advisor went on to say that his company employs 160 people, and that if he were required to provide health insurance for them it would bankrupt or severely hamper his profit margin. The first thing that I thought was if you employ 160 people and don't already provide health insurance then you should be reassessing your priorities. It is truly a shame that business leaders don't look at their employees as an asset worth taking care of. Secondly, to talk of a company employing 160 people as a small business is ridiculous. With that logic you could say that any company that doesn't have shares of stock trading on the market is small business. I define small business as those that would qualify for benefits from the SBA. Probably less than 10 employees. Mr. Ehrlich claims Obama's tax plan is class warfare, please. I am fed up with these pundits and the claims that wealthy people are being treated unfairly. For the last several years legislation has been passing that favors the wealthiest individuals and corporations, while ignoring the social consequences of the laws being introduced. It is shameful that the government has spent so much effort to help business while turning a blind eye to the struggles of the citezens trying to make ends meet. Hopefully the new administration will successfully reverse those policies, and reduce the disparity of income in our country.
It's all cries of class warfare all the time with these clueless-cretin cons.
They have no case, no clue and no hope so they trot out this class warfare crapolla and spew these factually-challenged gop-slop talking points of theirs everywhere they go.
Again, the thread - Ehrlich spews delusional dreck with no basis in fact and Tweety lets him get away with it. More as details develop. What else is new?
They should just call their bluff, ask to see their cards and watch these gops throw up all over themselves until it's time to break for a commercial.
Jpeagle
"Game, set, match. Checkmate. The fat lady has sung. Game over. Uno. Can you think of any others?"
When you say "uno" it doesn't mean you've won. The goal of that game is to dispose of all of your cards, and obviously you say "uno" when you're down to one. You might have to draw on your next turn.
Don't confuse the wacks with the facts.
What is a "wack"? You see.....making rhymes doesn't exempt you from making sense.
Clearly, you're confused, can't do either one and just went down lookin' without ever gettin' the bat off your shoulder, little fella.
Always a pleasure.
lol....I have to give you that one. I stand corrected.
Ya best get yourself some comfortable shoes, little fella. You're gonna need 'em.
James
I like how you put "rich" in quotation marks, as if that label is dubious. Yet you point out that we're talking about a small percentage of people paying 50% of taxes. Obviously that disparity shows how much wealthier they are than the vast majority of people.
Hey, brab, what's up? is there something wrong with your computer? You usually use the reply icon.
Roundhouse
It's a computer glitch. It can come or go from one minute to the next, without my closing or opening any programs or making any changes to anything else.
That's too bad. I can't offer any advice, I'm not terribly good with computers. Luckily, in this internet community there resides many people with the ability to help you. Hope they get here for you soon.
Nah, he's been doing that once a week or so for a year now. It's kind of his mandatory test of the EBS. Just remember, it was only a test.