About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Gingrich's attack on the "Obama administration's job-killing policies" falls flat

November 13, 2009 1:54 pm ET — 156 Comments

In a Washington Examiner column, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) claimed that President Obama and Congress "don't seem to realize that adopting bad policies kills jobs" and that "[w]e now have proof that the Obama administration's job-killing policies are hurting America." But to support his assertions, Gingrich made false and misleading claims about the Obama administration's and Congress' policies and failed to mention that the steep rise in unemployment began well before Obama even took office.

Gingrich blames Obama administration policies for recent job losses

Gingrich accuses Obama of "adopting bad policies [that] kill jobs." In a November 13 Washington Examiner column, Gingrich blamed Obama and Congress for the high unemployment rate, claiming, "We now have proof that the Obama administration's job-killing policies are hurting America." Gingrich cited job loss statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), writing that if one were to "consult a more objective source -- like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government's official job counter ... you'll find that 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs since February when the stimulus act was signed." Gingrich also predicted that the problem will get worse because of health care reform legislation, claiming, "Democratic economic policies aren't simply ineffective, they are affirmatively job killing. And they're about to get worse." From his Examiner column:

In the face of the worst jobless rate in 26 years, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats don't seem to realize that adopting bad policies kills jobs.

What's most remarkable about this is that the president should know better. We now have proof that the Obama administration's job-killing policies are hurting America.

[...]

So much for promises. By the White House's own standards of success, its economic recovery policies have been an abject failure. That doesn't mean they don't keep touting the stimulus as a success, of course, aided by that most meaningless of economic metrics, "jobs created or saved."

As recently as the end of October, Vice President Biden claimed that the stimulus act "saved or created" one million jobs.

But consult a more objective source -- like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government's official job counter -- and you'll find that 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs since February when the stimulus act was signed.

But Gingrich's argument is undermined by the fact that job losses stem from 2007 recession, and data suggest losses are slowing

The recession that began in 2007 -- not Obama's policies -- continues to drive job losses. Contrary to Gringrich's assertion that job losses this year resulted from Obama administration policies such as the stimulus, BLS data show that the trend of increasing unemployment resulting from the recession that began in December 2007 took root long before Obama was elected or inaugurated. From BLS seasonally adjusted unemployment data through October:

BLS chart of unemployment October 2007 - October 2009

Unemployment data suggest job losses are slowing. Gingrich wrote that BLS found "that 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs since February when the stimulus act was signed." But Gingrich ignores that job losses have generally slowed since January. From BLS seasonally adjusted payroll employment data through October:

BLS chart of job losses

Gingrich falsely claims House health care surcharge applies to all filers "who make more than $500,000 a year"

From Gingrich's column:

Democratic economic policies aren't simply ineffective, they are affirmatively job killing. And they're about to get worse.

The health care bill Speaker Nancy Pelosi bribed, cajoled and threatened through the House last weekend imposes a 5.4 percent income tax "surcharge" on any tax filer who makes more than $500,000 a year.

In fact, only single filers who make more than $500,000 a year would be subject to surcharge

Single filers who make $500,000 or more and married couples or families who make $1 million or more would be subject to surcharge. Contrary to Gingrich's claim, the House's health care legislation imposes a surcharge only on individuals making more than $500,000 a year. Couples and families are imposed a surcharge if their income is more than $1 million a year, which accounts only for the top 0.3 percent of households in the United States.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by pilotshark (November 13, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
      7  
      I am just wondering about the white wing wrong side party (repugs, tea baggers, conservative or what ever they call them selfs).
      they must be watching replays of Pinocchio thinking if they lie there johnson rods will grow instead of there nosies.

      they sure as hack know how to lie with out a blink.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
        1 10
        10.2 percent unemployment, worse than even jimmy carter, twins... nearly 800 TRILLION dollars in so called "stimulus" and NOTHING to show for it except for pork barrel projects, NEA for example...

        It still amazes me that when the left can't think of anything to say they just call names...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
          9  
          $800 trillion? Uh, I don't think so.

          Furthermore, the stimulus has been credited with averting a full-blown depression. Isn't that a good thing?

          In fact, here in Ohio, it was announced that tens of thousands of jobs were added/saved thanks to the stimulus. Isn't that a good thing?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
            1 8
            Sorry, you are of course correct 800Billion, we won't reach the high trillions until next year.

            Right stimulus credited with preventing a full-blown recession, ONLY if your a left of left democrat...

            Of course that's what they said in Ohio, well until people started checking... Hmmm lets count a "raise" as a job saved and other interesting "new-math" counting tricks.

            Oh yeah I know it's just the right wing-nuts listening to fox... Well why don't you go find one of the 10.2% unemployed or 17.5 percent underemployed and ask them what they think? The cute little graph MM shows DO NOT account for those that have fallen out of the counts after one-year.. duh! what would it be then mid-twenties?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
              7 1
              Economists have said that the stimulus helped avert a depression. You say it didn't. I'll believe the economists.

              Non-biased studies have shown that thousands of jost were created saved here in Ohio. You say it's counting tricks. I'll believe the studies.

              Read sciencebuff's economic lesson below. You might actually learn something.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by diamonds (November 14, 2009 4:48 am ET)
                  6
                The same economists that thought home prices would go up forever? The same economists that were denying there was a housing bubble until they were riding their home values all the way to zero? The same economists that said unemployment wouldn't go above 8.5% with the stimulus? The same economists that said a GM bankruptcy would be disastrous and we mustn't let it happen? What a track record, no thank you. I will trust the people who saw the bubble for what it was: a result of massive government spending from Bush and an easy-money policy from the Fed (1% interest rate from 2001 on). Oh look, that's exactly what we are doing now! This will not end well (but of course they will deny that, since government spending adds to GDP).
                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (November 14, 2009 10:44 am ET)
                  5  
                  Krugman, Stiglitsz and Baker all nailed the bubble and warned the stimulus won't be effective if it's too small.

                  You apparently haven't been paying attention. But I would love to hear your version of how government spending caused the housing bubble. I could use a good laugh.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by diamonds (November 14, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
                      5
                    Krugman's reasoning has nothing to do with the Fed, Fannie and Freedie, increased (or decreased, depending on viewpoint) regulations on banks. The only insight he manages to offer (that is correct in retrospect) is Stein's Law: "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

                    From around 2001 to 2005 the Fed had interest rates at near 1% - lower than the rate of price inflation. This means you couldn't afford not to get a mortgage. The Fed by itself doesn't set interest rates, it prints the money to get banks to lower the rate to the Fed Funds Rate Target, which in turn means banks either have to lower their rates or their standards. When combined with new regulations forcing banks to loan money as opposed to the previous regulations preventing them, home loans skyrocketed and pushed up housing prices, allocating capital away from other areas of the economy. The bubble encouraged companies to expend their capital, producing more goods, at the expense of future production. Eventually, there were simply not enough physical dollars and capital to keep the increasing prices going, and we went into a recession. Now we need to re-build our savings and capital and pay off debt (debt decreases during a contraction and increases during an expansion, and similarly with savings and capital investment), unfortunately when government spends money, it exacerbates the problem by discouraging savings and investment in favor of spending money.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 14, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
                  5  
                  "The same economists that thought home prices would go up forever? The same economists that were denying there was a housing bubble until they were riding their home values all the way to zero? The same economists that said unemployment wouldn't go above 8.5% with the stimulus? The same economists that said a GM bankruptcy would be disastrous and we mustn't let it happen? What a track record, no thank you. I will trust the people who saw the bubble for what it was: a result of massive government spending from Bush and an easy-money policy from the Fed (1% interest rate from 2001 on). Oh look, that's exactly what we are doing now! This will not end well (but of course they will deny that, since government spending adds to GDP)." - diamonds

                  No. Not the same economists.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (November 15, 2009 12:00 am ET)
                  4  
                  There were economists who said that given the preliminary economic information they had about the last quarter of 2008, they did predict a lower unemployment rate.

                  And after they got the more up-to-date numbers about how terribly diastrous that last quarter of the Bush presidency was, they knew that unemployment would be higher than they predicted.

                  I learned this last January. I have seen this printed elsewhere many times since.

                  How come you don't know this fact?
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (November 14, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
              5  
              Oh yeah I know it's just the right wing-nuts listening to fox... Well why don't you go find one of the 10.2% unemployed or 17.5 percent underemployed and ask them what they think?

              Republicans are paying attention to job loss's?

              What happened, did you sleep through the WORST jobs creations president EVER?

              8 YEARS of Republican President Bush resulted in the creation of ONLY 3 million jobs, the WORST since the government began keeping recordsBush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record...!

              In November 2008, the country lost OVER 500,000 jobs and December 2008 marked the FIRST time in the 70-year history of the report, in which the economy lost more than 500,000 jobs in CONSECUTIVE MONTHS! In 2008, Republican Bush LOST over 2.6 million jobs!Worst year for jobs since '45...

              And to put the cherry on the sundae, the unemployment rate ROSE from 4.9 in January 2008 to 7.6% in January 2009!

              Report Abuse
        • Author by Handsome Pete (November 13, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
          7  
          10.2 percent unemployment, worse than even jimmy carter


          Yeah it's as bad as Ronald Reagan.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
            1 8
            ahhh such fond memories, a real American hero Ronald Reagan...

            Amazing the greatest president in my lifetime immediately followed the worst...

            Hmmm... gives me HOPE, and maybe some CHANGE...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
              7  
              Saint Ronnie was a fraud. And he certainly was no hero.

              You should google what Saint Ronnie's fearmongering about Medicare for starters. Then google Iran Contra. Forget about that one?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 10:19 pm ET)
                1 7
                he was right about medicare now obama is going to prove it by cutting it to the bone and lying about how he's not...


                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 14, 2009 12:03 pm ET)
                  6  
                  Really? The government tells doctors where they can and cannot work? You gotta get outta that forest, Teddy. It's frying your brain.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Handsome Pete (November 13, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
              7  
              I guess the point flew over your old head. Either that or you were unconcious at the time. The unemployment rate was higher under Reagan than it ever was under carter. Look it up.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 10:21 pm ET)
                1 8
                OMG what an idiot.... only higher when he took office BUT he fixed it without blaming jimmy... Obama is driving it into the ground. Wanna know what economist have said, try the stimulus has peaked it's all downhill from here...
                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 10:27 pm ET)
                  7  
                  "BUT he fixed it without blaming jimmy."

                  Dude, Reagan blamed every liberal alive, especially Carter, for the problems our country was going through at the time. Stop your incessant lies.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by peace4all (November 14, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
                    4  
                    he's not lying, he's just to lazy and ignorant to look any further than his own idealogy. you could show him how the right has been a failure for decades and he would just plug his ears and scream "la la la la"
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 13, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
              6 1
              "Amazing the greatest president in my lifetime immediately followed the worst..." - oldmancantseeforest

              I don't know if I would call Obama the greatest president already. But, G-Dub was the worst, I'll give you that.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (November 13, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
              4 2
              Amazing the greatest president in my lifetime immediately followed the worst...
              It happened twice in my lifetime - Clinton followed Bush 41 and Obama followed Bush 43.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by sambo (November 13, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
          5  
          Get your facts straight,we've had 12 yrs. of this kind of crap
          Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
      9  
      How many jobs has the private sector created or saved Newt?

      How many people have lost their medical insurance because their jobs have been eliminated in the name of cheap labor?

      That job killing policy of going in search of the cheapest labor on the planet is pure Republican profit over people, market fundamentalism. That middle class killing policy of destroying public institutions is pure Republican slash and burn policy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 13, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
          10
        LOL, like every single one that still exists that's not for a government entity?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
          5  
          What?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 2:44 pm ET)
            1 12
            You asked how many jobs the private sector creates, and his answer is every job that is not for some government entity is a job created by the private sector.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
              7 1
              Cool. And where are they? The jobs the private sector has created in this recession, where are they?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 13, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
                2 12
                So you're going to blame the entire private sector for this? As if government entities like the post office are making money hand-over-fist?

                Whatever dude. Come back when reality's back. You wonder why everyone doesn't vote dem, and you won't know the answer until you realize that every corporation and every business isn't Goldman-Sachs and AIG, and every CEO and owner is Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
                  9  
                  You're the one saying I blame the private sector for this, you're the one evading the fact that jobs are not being created in the private sector because the market is not "taking care of itself." I'm just asking Newt to account for his anti-government, market fundamentalist rhetoric. So stop with your straw man implication that I'm hating on small businesses. It's small businesses that will benefit from government putting people to work and getting money in the hands of consumers.

                  Also, the Post Office isn't out there to make a profit, they are out there to provide a public service. So you really don't have a point.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (November 14, 2009 10:49 am ET)
                  5  
                  To reiterate, since you did your best to change the subject, where are all the private sector jobs? Where are are they being created?

                  Don't get me wrong, I don't think that government can solve every problem or that every business is evil, that's the simpleton view that Tommy would have you believe. It's just that the private sector isn't doing anything but shedding jobs right now and government is the only institution that can put people to work.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 13, 2009 3:26 pm ET)
                1 11
                I also enjoy MMfA pointing out that we're losing "less" jobs. Get to me about the RATE at which we're losing jobs, not the # of jobs lost. If there are x amount of jobs, and y jobs are lost one month, then the amount of jobs lost won't be a percentage of X, they'll be a percentage of X-Y, so "less jobs lost" doesn't mean things are getting better.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by cugagcmu805031 (November 13, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Try stabilizing
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by ScienceBuff (November 13, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
                  12  
                  No, actually "less jobs lost" usually DOES mean things are getting better. Ask any economist about a recession. As it begins, jobs start to be lost. That trend will accelerate as things get worse. When economic conditions start to improve, job losses don't just suddenly halt. They disappear at a slower rate. That rate will continue to get slower until it flattens and begins to become job growth. By that time we're well into the recovery phase.

                  Job growth ALWAYS lags economic recovery. It's like the analogy of reversing course in an ocean liner. It takes some time and as you begin you continue to move farther from your eventual goal. That movement away becomes less as your position improves, just like with job recovery.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
                    7  
                    Stop it with your elitist economic facts and seafaring analogies.

                    Obama is the cause of everything wrong with this country. Oops, that's right, there is nothing wrong with the country because we live in the greatest country in the history of countries. USA!! USA!!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by ScienceBuff (November 13, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Aye, matey, that she be.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 10:26 pm ET)
                        8
                      sounds like you'd like to find someplace better. go for it, let us know where you land...

                      While obama may not be the cause of everthing wrong in this country, he certainly has done his best to wreck what he can in his first year.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 10:38 pm ET)
                        6  
                        How?

                        By compromising away single payer healthcare to the wingers before we even started the reform fight? By encouraging kids to stay in school and work hard? By signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?

                        I could agree that the stimulus has failed in its stated goal in as much as it didn't go far enough. I could agree that his economic advisers are the problem, not the solution. I could agree with you if you weren't so out to lunch.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by Handsome Pete (November 13, 2009 4:28 pm ET)
                  4  
                  I guess you don't understand the graphs, then. X is not a static number. Jobs are being created, the problem is, more jobs are being lost than created. When the curve on the graph isn't as steep, that means that the trend is starting to slow down, that the gains are catching up to the losses. So when we're losing "less" jobs, that means the situation IS improving, though it's still not good. When the curve levels off, that means we're not losing jobs anymore, or that the losses are balanced by the gains. And when the curve reverses, that means we're gaining jobs. When the curve steepens, we're gaining jobs faster. It's not that hard.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by vhw28672478 (November 13, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
              2  
              How many jobs did Bush crate ?
              Report Abuse
      • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
        2 8
        Go out and try to start a company you might learn something. Small businesses make up 98% of the big bad corporations and use to provide many of those MILLIONS of jobs Obama has lost.

        WHY? because the Obama administration just keeps right on spending, even worse than bush.

        All these small businesses are taxed to-death. don't believe it, try starting your own business.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (November 13, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
          7  
          Let me see if I can follow this logic. Jobs are being lost because businesses are overtaxed. The President is to blame for that overtaxing. This administration hasn't added a single tax to the current business tax burden. Therefore, clearly, those "MILLIONS" of jobs lost are the blame of the last President.

          Wanna tell me where I'm mistaken?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pilotshark (November 13, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
            6  
            It would but i think you confused it, with your logic and well actually understanding of how the real america works.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 10:32 pm ET)
              7
            Your mistaken, first of all this president HAS increased taxation. Look it up...actually he increased taxes on those least able to afford it, cigarette smokers, illiterate left-wing nuts. So then I suppose we have to increase the minimum wage so they can afford the tax increase. pathetic...

            Second while he may not have raised business taxes he has spent over three times what bush spent. the "economist" say that can't do anything but lead to higher taxes, read the stupid "health care reformless bills". tax and spend... tax more spend more...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by benjr (November 13, 2009 11:30 pm ET)
              7  
              Wait... so the president "HAS increased taxation" and your example is cigarette smokers. Okay, but how are they the "least able to afford it"? I smoke cigarettes. I can afford them. What are you trying to say? That point makes no sense. Try again.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 14, 2009 12:06 pm ET)
                5  
                I think he just tried to suggest his small business is being taxed through cigarettes. Perhaps he runs a tobacco shop? In the forest??
                Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (November 15, 2009 12:58 am ET)
                1  
                Poor people spend a higher percentage of their 'disposable' income on cigarettes, plus there's a higher percentage of poorer people who still smoke.

                It's a regressive tax, but it's not a tax on people's earnings in any case, so Obama didn't violate his promise, despite what the rightwingers want us to believe.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by sambo (November 14, 2009 8:10 pm ET)
              3  
              Roundhouse is right you are totally out to lunch, all this babbling, and no facts, surely you can do better that just
              a measly "look it up"
              Report Abuse
          • Author by diamonds (November 14, 2009 4:59 am ET)
              6
            Absolutely, Bush did cause many of the problems. Low interest rates (1% from 2001 on), massive increases in federal spending (two wars, an unsustainable global empire, social security, the first stimulus and bail outs). The only problem is while Obama is complaining so loudly about how fast we are driving off a cliff he is stepping on the gas.

            All government spending must lead to taxes eventually, either through inflation (printing the money), direct taxes, or taking out loans (which increase interest rates and reduces money available for private use, plus we now need to pay taxes in interest - payments of interest on the debt make up 1/10th of our federal budget).

            It has been clearly indicated Congress (and Obama) wants to let the tax cuts expire, further repressing private investment. Instead of cutting taxes and encouraging private growth, we are increasing taxes soon and spending money on things Americans don't necessarily want. Government spending does not produce wealth, only private spending can - the definition of voluntary exchange.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (November 14, 2009 10:59 am ET)
              6  
              Bullcrap. You loons have been telling us that high taxes hinder growth for years but it has never been shown true. Never

              When taxes were highest in this country everybody, not just the rich, did better.

              You market fundamentalists are a joke. Markets could not exist, let alone flourish, without government spending on the courts, schools, roads, banks and on and on. You have no idea what it takes to live in a functional society. It takes government investment in the future of its citizens.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 14, 2009 12:07 pm ET)
                5  
                Right. Dwight D. Eisenhower must have been a communist.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by diamonds (November 14, 2009 5:22 pm ET)
                  4
                Tell me with a straight face that if we had 100% taxes it wouldn't hurt business. Go ahead. We had these high tax rates during the Great Depression: it scared off nearly all private investment. We cut these taxes around World War 2 and Regan: Both times we saw an increase in investment.

                Why are rich investors leaving California and New York? Probably because of the massive marginal tax rate the states have. I would like to see what evidence you are pointing to, all of the research I have ever looked at suggests that when government takes less money from people, people invest or spend more money... That seems like common sense. The more money you have, the more you can invest.

                You claim markets could not exist? You realize there was a time when roads and schools were privately owned? Perhaps you cannot even remember the time a couple years ago when most banks were privately owned. Many roads are, in fact, privately owned, and in New England they tend to be the roads without pot holes. Otherwise there are tollways, almost entirely independent from taxpayer money. Government does have a legitimate purpose: to protect liberty, the Constitution, and private property through the courts.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (November 15, 2009 12:04 am ET)
                  2  
                  NO one has ever suggested 100% taxes, nor anything like that.

                  Go take your strawman argument and shove it.

                  You don't know what you're talking about WRT taxes.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (November 15, 2009 1:39 am ET)
                       
                    Yeah, that 100% tax rate was a huge straw man. And, "That seems like common sense."(?) Come on man, all you have to do is look at the way tax cuts under Bush and Reagan have squeezed the middle class and distributed wealth upward.

                    Look at how the Republicans tore down the work of the only good Republican, Teddy Roosevelt's, upper tax rates; how they tore down anti-trust regulations and deregulated the banks from 1920 to 1929 instigating the Great Depression throwing masses of
                    Americans into abject poverty while a handful industrialists kept all the gold. Then look at how FDR's New Deal consisting of public investment, a strong social safety net and higher taxes on the rat bastards who caused the s**t to fly expanded the middle class at rates unseen in the history of the world.

                    Look also at the way the Reagan/Bush tax cuts and deregulations have funneled the nation's wealth all the way to the top where it sits today, doesn't get invested or spent on creating jobs like diamonds says, it just amasses there in greater concentration than it did in the 20's.

                    Then he tries to sing the praises of private roads and private schools, as if it is acceptable in the land of opportunity, to deny one's access to the things we all share and absolutely need in order to partake of our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, simply because one can't afford it.

                    He needs to get that retrograde libertarian nonsense outta here and realize that no country has ever sustained long term prosperity based on that every man for himself, pay to play, philosophy. People like him are destroying our common future.


                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by diamonds (November 15, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
                         
                      Straw man? Excuse me? If someone makes the claim that taxes do not hurt private investment, that is a valid argument to make. The tax rate during the Great Depression was ninety-four percent. Private investment was almost entirely scared away. It is a well documented fact that raising the capital gains tax has also decreased private investment.

                      Take a look at India and China vs. Taiwan and Hong Kong. Tell me who is richer. The only reason China has a middle class at all (and only within the last decade) is after the deregulation of private enterprise, meanwhile India has massively increased their trade with other countries.

                      to deny one's access to the things we all share and absolutely need in order to partake of our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, simply because one can't afford it.

                      No one has the right to another's property. If you cannot afford it, that does not mean you get to steal it with violent force from another person, because that would deny them of their rights.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2009 11:23 am ET)
                           
                        Yes. Straw man. And you have thrown out another one that I will address shortly. Anyway, we had high taxes on the rich in the past and rich people still got rich, so just cry me a river that millionaires have to bare the responsibility of their station and pay into the commonwealth that enabled them to prosper in the first place.

                        You're gonna try to hold up China as a model for the U.S to emulate? That's crazy talk but not unexpected from a right wing authoritarian. Not only are workers in China basically a slave class, you're talking about a country that exports toys with lead paint to our country. You can't even eat the food in China without gambling with your life. That's what deregulation leads to and it is not acceptable. We have standards here, dude. Come on.

                        "No one has the right to another's property. If you cannot afford it, that does not mean you get to steal it with violent force from another person, because that would deny them of their rights."

                        Straw man again, this time with a dramatic flair for effect. Threat of violence? You have become unglued.

                        I was talking about public schools and roads, things like that, you know, infrastructure? Our commons? The institutions, services and utilities that we need to build a better future for all. To deny a kid, for example, a quality education because his dad's job got sent to China and he can't afford it anymore is heinously unjust. It's not the kind of country we live in. We care about each other in America.

                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (November 15, 2009 2:06 am ET)
                       
                    And I forgot to address that whiny idiocy about high taxes on the wealthy driving rich investors out of state. I mean get a grip, Nancy. Their cut and run strategy would seem to have more to do with there being nothing to invest in than the fact that taxes are high. Boo Hoo. I have very little sympathy for shareholders who green light mergers of companies for the sole purpose of gutting wages, cutting employees and destroying communities for the sake of their selfish quick profits.

                    People like diamonds also like to talk about how high taxes discourage individuals from working harder to make money. That s**t is crazy. If someone is thrown off by that, they most likely are making excuses for being lazy. Nothing is going to get between a person who is bent on making a fortune and their money. We've had high taxes in the past and rich people still got rich. The only difference was that everybody else did well too because government could properly fund the institutions and programs, like public education and public assistance, that enabled people to prosper and also alleviate the suffering of the impoverished.

                    God, sometimes I just can't stand these conservative zealots.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by diamonds (November 15, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
                         
                      You seem to be missing the point that profits are a good thing: Monetary profits can only be obtained when someone satisfies human wants with something limited in supply. Is that so evil? When two people exchange, they both benefit more than if they had not (by the definition of voluntary exchange, otherwise there would have been no exchange). Like gas, for instance, even if I am upset it might be $6/gal the cost it would be for me to otherwise have to walk, ride a bike, take a scooter, or even pump the oil and refine it myself, would be far more expensive, therefore I profit too (not monetary profits, but profit nonetheless, since value is subjective). One person is getting a small benefit each from many people, and many people are getting a small benefit from one person, and vice-versa when all those many people go to work, each of them helping and profiting from helping many people.

                      Furthermore, when rich investors profit, they, oh, invest in more companies and profit-making ventures, further helping more people. Things like cheaper computers, cheaper ways to manufacture food, better entertainment, and numerous things I could only imagine. Does government do that? No, government is the only entity that gets more money when it fails. Public schooling not working out? Pump in more money! Medicare not working out? Pump in more money! When a private school or insurance company fails, however, those limited resources that they were using up are freed and made available to the next person to use more efficiently. What part of this process do you hate so much again?

                      Just because the income gap is wider does not mean society is poorer, instead, goods are cheaper. The rich have become richer, and the poor have become richer, even if incomes stay the same. You are not seeing that which is not seen, or cannot be measured: The benefits that are provided to society when there are no taxes. All you see are the benefits that taxes provide, with no regard to what they would do had they been in private hands: Lowering costs of products, spurring growth, or employing people, things that government cannot do as efficiently because there is no method of profit to determine if you are satisfying human wants or not.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2009 11:35 am ET)
                           
                        "You seem to be missing the point that profits are a good thing"

                        Profits are fine, but you can't tell me one man is 350 times more productive than anybody else or that these perverse Wall St compensations are morally justified.

                        What you are missing is people are getting crushed by a race to the bottom of the wage barrel. We are being ground up by an economic machine that regards people as commodities to be bought and sold as cheaply as cheaply as possible. The rest of your post is just supply side bulls**t. It isn't working for people.
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (November 14, 2009 11:02 am ET)
              3  
              It takes government investment in conjunction with free enterprise, that is.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 13, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
          5  
          So, you actually have a small business and you believe you are paying higher taxes under Obama? Come out of the forest, man. You've been in there too long.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by JLP (November 13, 2009 5:28 pm ET)
             
          Yes, oldman, lets spend on needless wars instead of stimulating our economy and providing healthcare a la GW.

          I don't follow your other points, 98% reference makes no sense at all, if you are trying to blame job losses on obama then you probably have no grasp of economics or gramma for that matter.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
        1 7
        wake up "pure republican profit". So why is it some of the richest "democrats" employ overseas labor, check out your friend Warren Buffet a confirmed lefty... Oh here's a pointer of companies owned by berkshire hathoway;

        http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/subs/sublinks.html

        Wonder just how many of those "democratic profits" utilize off-shore labor???

        BTW take a look at the eco-UNfriendly NetJets, yup lets make jets available to the rich so they can be like al gore dumping carbon into the air while telling me I can't burn my wood-burning stove. HA
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 13, 2009 5:45 pm ET)
          7  
          What the-? Does anybody follow this rambling? This belongs in a manifesto of someone living deep in...a..forest. Wait a minute! Ted?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (November 13, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
      7  
      Republicans say "job-killing taxes" like breathing, but there hasn't actually been a real tax that killed real jobs.

      Clinton quadrupled Bush's job-creation numbers.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
        8  
        That's true. Higher taxes on the upper crust have never inhibited broad prosperity. In fact, higher taxes on the wealthy have only served to expand the middle class. These Bush tax cuts have done nothing but distributed wealth accumulation upward while everybody else has seen their jobs disappear and the middle class shrink.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 13, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
          1 10
          How do taxes on the wealthy expand the middle class? By making the wealthy middle-class?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by cugagcmu805031 (November 13, 2009 3:41 pm ET)
            6  
            By restricting the distribution of wealth. Owners of corporations and some politicians denying workers the right to use collective bargaining to increase wages, out-sourcing jobs, refusing to make the minimum wage a living wage are three exaamples.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
                9
              Restricting? You want to redistribute wealth. Take from the earners and give to the non-earners.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by cugagcmu805031 (November 13, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
                6  
                It happened to me throughout my career, and is still happening in retirement. Redistribution of wealth has been a part of the American economy since the Great Depression. This is not a new concept. Unemployment payments, social security, subsidies to businesses, medicaid, and medicare are examples of the distribution of wealth and have been for years. They just haven't been called distribution of wealth. One of the flaws of the market economy is income inequity, so the government took steps to ameliorate these effects. America has a mixed economy--a combination of decision-making by command, some market economy mechanisms, and, socialism, which make the current screams of socialism so laughable and deserving of ridicule.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 3:56 pm ET)
                    8
                  You call income inequity a flaw, I call it opportunity. For it fosters entrepreneurs, initiative, ambition, success and responsibility, as well as pride and ownership. Nobody is denied the opportunity, it's tougher for some but it is not impossible. That is where the morality comes in, and I believe it is immoral to take from one and give to another. However, I don't believe it is immoral to help or assist your fellow citizen at all. I don't need government's hand it to force it out of me.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
                    7  
                    On cue, right ON rants about responsibility, ambition, blah, blah, blah, and whines about the forceful government hand.

                    Are you against the redistribution of wealth upward over the past 8 years where now the top 1% has 90% of the nation's wealth? There was this little thing called the Great Depression the last time the wealth disparity was this large.

                    And here's a simple little econ lesson for ya, Tommy. When the middle and lower classes don't have any money, they don't buy anything. And in our consumer-driven economy, when no one buys anything, the whole shebang grinds to a halt.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
                        8
                      I am not surprised responsibility is nothing more than a blah, blah rant to you. I guess if responsibility is elusive and unimportant to you, and somebody else disagrees, you call it a blah, blah rant.

                      If you have no responsibility, you deserve nothing from me or anyone else. When you discover a little, then we will see what we can to.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
                        6  
                        you call it a blah, blah rant.

                        That's because it was. Ranting and whining. But it's what you do best. So predictable.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 4:38 pm ET)
                            8
                          All good. I don't care how much you complain about heartless greedy conservatives, or me, just as long as you do it with your hand behind your back instead of it being outstretched. Carry on.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
                            7  
                            It's not complaining. It's calling it as I see it.

                            I noticed you didn't answer my question. I'll try again:

                            Are you against the redistribution of wealth upward over the past 8 years where now the top 1% has 90% of the nation's wealth?
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
                    6  
                    " I believe it is immoral to take from one and give to another"

                    Jesus disagrees with you and I'll take his morality over yours any day.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
                    6  
                    " I believe it is immoral to take from one and give to another"

                    Jesus disagrees with you and I'll take his morality over yours any day.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by diamonds (November 14, 2009 5:27 pm ET)
                        3
                      Are you kidding? Government forcefully removes wealth from individuals with the threat of violence. I don't know what part of the bible you are reading, but Jesus absolutely did not preach in favor of violent, forceful taking, instead, promoting giving, which is voluntary.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (November 15, 2009 2:12 am ET)
                        1  
                        Threat of violence? Whatever drama queen. What? Are you going to be executed for not paying your taxes? Grow up.

                        Jesus held the wealthy in very low regard and considered it sinful to possess such perverse fortunes while so many around them were deprived.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by diamonds (November 15, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
                             
                          Have you ever seen someone who doesn't pay taxes? It isn't pretty. Most of them are in jail.

                          You wouldn't call someone who mugs someone for half of what they have on them a "giver" would you, even if they turned around and donated what they stole from charity? Of course not. They are a taker (or just a thief).

                          Generally the wealthy people were the tax men and whoever shared his collections, so it isn't surprising. Otherwise, it wasn't so much holding the rich in low regard as it was the poor who gave everything in high regard. Modern day however, most people become wealthy by producing things in exchange for other things in the most efficient manner.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2009 11:41 am ET)
                               
                            You're simply off your rocker. I see corporations who evade their taxes every single day and it ain't pretty. I don't see them being put to death, so to h*ll with your over the top 'threat of violence' rhetoric. It simply doesn't match up with reality.

                            And go back read about Jesus some more.

                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2009 11:41 am ET)
                               
                            You're simply off your rocker. I see corporations who evade their taxes every single day and it ain't pretty. I don't see them being put to death, so to h*ll with your over the top 'threat of violence' rhetoric. It simply doesn't match up with reality.

                            And go back read about Jesus some more.

                            Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 3:59 pm ET)
                6  
                You mean leeches. They receive all the benefits of living in our society and scream like babies when they're called upon to honor their responsibilities by giving back to the commons that enable them to prosper in such great disproportion.

                Meanwhile, you seem to be perfectly cool with redistributing wealth upward, to the ""worthy" the "elect," the person who produces nothing, the person who makes money off of money; as if the people who mop floors, flip burgers, babysit, clean hotel rooms, wait tables, load trucks, sell audio equipment, serve coffee etc. are not worthy of having their futures invested in with a strong social safety net. That's the very definition of elitist snob. Well done.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
                    8
                  Oh stop with your phony concerns. Tell me how a vibrant employer produces nothing? It is utterly absurd. Who the hell do you think employs people and pays wages? I have never disrespected anyone who earns a living through an honest wage, including all the professions you list and more. So don't tell me about being a snob. However, along with that respect I expect responsibility. Live within your means, don't make stupid moral choices, those responsibilities. Or is it only the "wealthy" that have any responsibility in your mind?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:29 pm ET)
                    4  
                    I wouldn't call you a snob. Heartless, maybe. A lover of the wealthy class, definitely. Are you really Joe the Plumber?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 4:32 pm ET)
                      1 7
                      If not wanting to dole out my money to someone like you, who considers responsibility a rant blah blah, is heartless, so be it. You deserve the lot you've created for yourself. Don't come to anyone for a handout until you own up. Good luck.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
                        5  
                        I forgot a couple more - you're also selfish and greedy. Must suck to be you.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by pilotshark (November 13, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
                          5  
                          you forgot jack-azz un-american un-patriotic, and well a lackey of the rich, why i bet he has never been on unemployment or have had to ask some one for help.

                          the rich you like would not be rich if it was not for the ones you call lazy and non needing.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (November 14, 2009 12:40 am ET)
                            5  
                            Well, he got really, really upset when I called him unpatriotic - it must have hit too close to home, so he was probably really unhappy at your accurate descriptions here!
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 7:34 pm ET)
                    5  
                    "Oh stop with your phony concerns."

                    pffft. Whatever. I'm the guy on the losing end of the class warfare, my concerns are very real. Just like every working person in this country, I've had more and more asked of me, delivered it and been rewarded less and less for my work. Don't bother telling me that I can just go out and find a better job, it's not that easy in the real world, Tommy. Not today in this job market here in KY it isn't. There are so few jobs to be had, that employers can pay as low a wage as they want and still have droves of prospective employees from which to chose.

                    I've seen companies that pay well and provide benefits for their people get bought by Wall St punks for the sole purpose of gutting said company's wages, benefits, services and sucking as much short term profit from it as possible for personal gain. I've seen mom and pop shops get put out of business by the likes of Wal-Mart, who amassed such amazing purchasing power because they exploit their workers. So have you. I know you've seen it.


                    And by the way, those guys from Wall St., the Walton family, they're the same guys who benefit most from these absurdly low tax rates on the wealthy, they're the guys you call "earners." It's absolutely disgusting to defend rules that benefit this behavior, but that's what you do when you b**ch about taxes, rail against government regulation and label public investment, "redistribution of wealth." It's what you do, it's who you conservatives are. It's what happens when you allow the cold calculus of business profit to replace civics and ethics.

                    Get your disgusting ideology out of my country.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 8:01 pm ET)
                      5  
                      Tommy can't even understand that wealth can be redistributed upward. That's what we're dealing with here.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 9:28 pm ET)
                        5  
                        Yep. He's the same one who calls income inequality opportunity.

                        Dude is a mess.

                        Thankfully, even if they identify as Republican, more people in this country agree with liberal views of government activism and strong public institutions than agree with Tommy.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 13, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
                6  
                Your flaw in that logic, rightOn, is that you seem to assume the wealthy are earners and the middle class are non-earners. We are talking about redistributing wealth from the upper class to the middle class and you took that to mean we are taking from earners and giving it to non-earners. This is just simply false.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
                    7
                  Redistributing who's wealth. When you take from one and give it to another; workers, earners, non-workers, non-earners, that is exactly what it is. Taking from an earner and giving it to someone who did not earn it. If someone takes my $1 and gives it to you, I earned it, you did not.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 13, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
                    4  
                    OK. So, you really have a problem with the progessive income tax. Right?

                    When you say non-earners you certainly comes across as if you are suggesting that since I pay more in taxes than I take out andn my neighbor takes more out than he pays in that he is a non-earner. May not be what you meant, but it certainly came across that way to me.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
                        6
                      Huh? We are talking about earners and non-earners, of which you mischaracterized what I am saying. Of course people with money pay more taxes. Who do you think pay the vast majority of taxes in this country now?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
                        5  
                        I notice that you're still here. Care to answer my question since you're fervidly against income redistribution?

                        Are you against the redistribution of wealth upward over the past 8 years where now the top 1% has 90% of the nation's wealth?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
                            7
                          I have no interest in being on the receiving end of anyone else's wealth being distributed upwards or downwards, like you do. If I can't earn my own, then I have no business taking someone elses. I guess we are different that way.

                          Your question makes no sense, so it doesn't deserve an answer.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
                            7
                          "redistribution of wealth upward"

                          This is what makes no sense. It's like telling a cow that giving her back her own milk is "redistributing it upwards".
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 6:23 pm ET)
                            5  
                            Your question makes no sense, so it doesn't deserve an answer.

                            So says the person who can't or won't provide an answer. It makes sense. It really happened. Trust me. It happened. 90% of the wealth is now owned by the top 1%, the highest disparity since the robber baron days. That's not good for any economy.

                            Well, if you can't understand that wealth can and has been redistributed upward due to Bush's tax policies, then we can't have a debate. Good night.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 6:34 pm ET)
                                6
                              That's fine, we never have a debate anyway because your greatest strength is calling me a troll of one sort or another. So we've really lost nothing here, good night.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 7:44 pm ET)
                                5  
                                Whatever, Tommy. You use the personal attack as effectively as anybody here. You have no moral standing upon which to castigate foghorn for doing the very thing that you revel and excel in.
                                Report Abuse
                      • Author by pilotshark (November 13, 2009 6:27 pm ET)
                        6  
                        Well it use to be called the middle class. you know us as the non earners.
                        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
          1 8
          Ok, forget the economic ramifications for a minute, you and I will never agree on what government's role and size should be anyway. You often talk about taking care of our fellow citizens and other flowery phrases about compassion, etc; well tell me, what is morally right about forcibly taking someone's money beyond what is necessary to fuel government's primary obligations and services. To tax them at some high, unending arbitrary rate that you deem correct to expand those services into just giving people someone else's money?

          If you have faith in the American people, as you have indicated in the past, then why do you feel the need to force more money out of them? Don't you think we are capable of giving and helping out our fellow citizens without the government demanding it?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by cugagcmu805031 (November 13, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
            5  
            Don't you think we are capable of giving and helping out our fellow citizens without the government demanding it?

            If this is so, why haven't we seen this in the last 30 years, most of them under republican leadership?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
              1 9
              I am not talking about Republican or Democrat, I am talking about the generosity of the American people. It is evident every day when the chips are down, even in tough economic times we give and give and always have. You can't legislate compassion, and we don't need too.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by cugagcmu805031 (November 13, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
                6  
                So what happens in bad economic times like we have now, where demand exceeds charitable donations? Even charities are struggling to provide for the disadvantaged.
                I have no objection to my taxes helping any American who needs help.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
                    8
                  Yes, we need a safety net. But look at charitable contributions before we had welfare, they did quite well. And when people have more money in their pocket due to less taxes and smaller government and understand that government isn't going to bail out everything, they will quite well again.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Handsome Pete (November 13, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
                    7  
                    I don't know what history books you're reading, but private charities have never been able to keep up with the demand of poverty in any society.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 13, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
                    5  
                    That is simply false, rightOn. Speak to the generation that lived through the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Charity was not saving them. The government had to step in and save them. Come on. These arguments have all been tried and proven wrong. Can we begin to make some progress?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (November 14, 2009 12:46 am ET)
                    6  
                    RightON's suggestion that charities did just fine until welfare came along is ludicrous. The reason we got Social Security was because so many elderly people were dirt poor and not helped enough by charity! The reason we got welfare was because family and charity weren't able to keep all those people afloat!

                    And we have much lower taxes now on people than we did one or two generations ago, so your complaint that we need lower taxes now is nonsense.

                    What a tool.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 13, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
            5  
            So, you're arguing against a progressive income tax. Well, you're free to hold that belief. I believe Teddy Roosevelt explained all that generations ago. There is a need for a progressive income tax. I make alot of money and I should, therefore, pay more in taxes. That is my patriotic duty. I suppose we could go into all the obvious reason this is so, but you would probably get more out of it if you went back and read Teddy Roosevelt's reasoning. It is a conservative's defense of the progressive tax.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
            5  
            "you and I will never agree on what government's role and size should be anyway."

            "what is morally right about forcibly taking someone's money beyond what is necessary to fuel government's primary obligations and services.[?]."

            Beyond the incessantly whiny, Norquist anti-tax framing it's a ridiculous question. How can you expect me accept the premise of your question when you already know we don't agree on the role of government?

            "To tax them at some high, unending arbitrary rate that you deem correct to expand those services into just giving people someone else's money?"

            Arbitrary? We have economists who are smarter than you or I to figure out that number.

            But it's my money too and I feel very good about making my contribution for better roads, libraries, schools, medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment and the like. You would have us believe that some bureaucrat is sticking up rich folks, taking their cash and going to the corner liquor store to give it to winos or something. That's so far removed from reality that I hurt myself laughing at it. We pay taxes so they can be invested in the services and institutions we all need to utilize to become a more perfect union.

            Everybody else here already demolished your utopian vision of charity being effective enough to see us through these times, but I would add that, while charitable giving is noble, charities are under no obligation to serve equally. They are free to discriminate among who receives their benefits and who doesn't. Government has no such luxury.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 4:07 pm ET)
            6
          what world are you in. I've never worked for a poor person. 10.2 percent unemployment, 17.5 percent under-employment...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
            1 7
            Exactly. They keep demonizing people who create jobs and pay salaries. Pitting them against those who work for them. When in actuality most employers value their employees as assets and partners, otherwise they quickly go out of business. Because treating employees like crap isn't good business, and they soon realize that.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:32 pm ET)
              5  
              They keep demonizing people who create jobs and pay salaries

              "They", whoever "they" are, are not demonizing. It's you who are worshipping at the altar of wealth. Are you Joe the Plumber?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (November 13, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
              5  
              Nobody's demonizing anyone. Greed hurts the poor, so the goal is moderation and balance. And it's not really relevant whether "most" employers value their employees or not, because the system is regulated in order to keep everyone accountable. For instance, you could say that most employers wouldn't hire children as seamstresses, make them work 12-hour days and put a chain around the fire exit. But some did things like that, which is why we have unions and OSHA today. Employers who are acting honorably shouldn't have any problems with a system that seeks to prevent excessive economic imbalance, and the hell with the rest of them.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
                  7
                "Nobody's demonizing anyone"

                Baloney. Are you going to honestly sit there and tell me that people with money are not demonized here every single day, trashed as being greedy and heartless, look above as examples of that on this very thread. So if and when you can at least acknowledge that, perhaps we can continue. Otherwise there is no point.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (November 13, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
                  3  
                  You seemed to be speaking generally, meaning that people were demonized because they're well-off. I don't buy that. There are any number of examples of corporate greed and malfeasance, and policies that foster that behavior are rightly criticized for that result. That's the theme of the discussion as far as I typically see it. For instance:
                  By restricting the distribution of wealth. Owners of corporations and some politicians denying workers the right to use collective bargaining to increase wages, out-sourcing jobs, refusing to make the minimum wage a living wage are three exaamples.
                  There's nothing there that criticizes someone simply for being rich. The behavior cited is specific, which doesn't preclude him from believing that most employers are good people.

                  If I took some license in saying "nobody", then that's fine. Some people may get carried away. The point remains that criticizing behavior is not the same as demonizing someone based on their class, and people who provide jobs are still accountable for what they do.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
                      6
                    Oh please, so now you are saying that those that slam rich people are generally behavior-specific? That is ridiculous. There is no such theme. It is blanket demonization for the simple fact that they have money, period. When has anyone come on here and defended corporate greed and malfeasance? There is no differentiation, it's the rich, pure and simple.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (November 13, 2009 7:33 pm ET)
                      3  
                      When has anyone come on here and defended corporate greed and malfeasance?
                      What is the point of saying that poor people don't hire anyone, exactly? Are we supposed to withhold criticism because they're the ones who provide jobs? They're accountable just like anyone else.

                      Is "the person who makes money off of money" supposed to apply to business in general? I didn't see that quote. But, like I said, some people may go overboard. That doesn't detract from my argument, it's just a distraction.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
                        4  
                        You're right, it doesn't apply to all business in general. It was specifically directed at the banksters on Wall St. They just happen to be the kind of people who wind up being favored by tax cuts for the rich and they're the same people tommy defends when he gripes about taxes on them.

                        Also. You could do well to get carried away and go overboard once in a while your dang self. ;)
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
                      6
                    And you cite an example, so let me do it. And tell me how this is behavior-specific? "the person who produces nothing, the person who makes money off of money"

                    My example is by far the norm, yours is the exception.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 6:10 pm ET)
                      7
                    Another example below of the simple-minded trashing of those with money. Tell me again how it's only the behavior and not the size of their bank account.

                    "I don't give a crap about redistribution or fairness"
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by pilotshark (November 13, 2009 6:39 pm ET)
                      6  
                      Well you just summed your position up.

                      "I dont give a crap"

                      that i have to agree with you on 100% you truly do not give a crap.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
                  5  
                  trashed as being greedy and heartless,

                  For the record, I stated that YOU are greedy and heartless.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 8:26 pm ET)
            3  
            Ah, that piece of right wing trash is an oldie but a goodie, "I've never worked for a poor person." Actually, poor people have been known to take out loans and start businesses back before conservatives destroyed upward mobility in this country.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
            7
          what do you consider "upper-crust" anything over $20,000 a year? Find a family of four that makes $40,000 and pays taxes.

          At some point I'll get disgusted at working 50-60 hours per week, employing a few (at much better than minimum wage) and sell the whole mess to some other poor sucker.

          You people are absolutely pathetic, most probably pay no taxes and some probably get 3-4000 from "earned income credits". That's where you liberals take money from me and pay it to someone else just because they have a job... REAL SMART. pathetic...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
            5  
            Hate radio sure has done a job on you. Seek help. Professional help.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 9:01 pm ET)
            4  
            Wow! I'll be waiting for you to flip your script tomorrow. Maybe it will be the next day. I know sooner or later I will see you call us all elitists who own everything and are ruining everything. But for today, since it suits your purposes, we are all feckless leeches.

            Go bugger yourself.

            Can't wait to nail you on your propaganda "catapulting."


            Report Abuse
    • Author by sambo (November 13, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
      5  
      C'MON Newt,pay attention to your sister Candice, it want work anymore, you are old hat, they wont listen to you again, they know you, and your scare tactics, you lied to them to many times. Go back under your rock where newts live
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oldmaninblackforest (November 13, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
          6
        Take it from Obama the lies are falling on deaf ears... the second coming of jimmy carter, twins...

        BTW why is it liberals always say "the worst economy since the great depression"? instead of the more real "the worst economy since jimmy carter. Clearly jimmy is the worst president in the history of the US. Move over jimmy, president obama is taking aim at your title...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 4:40 pm ET)
          5  
          Clearly jimmy is the worst president in the history of the US.

          Only in your warped mind. At least Carter was a man of peace. You got something against peace?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by pilotshark (November 13, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
          6  
          dam black forest you in Germany?

          as we the people dont take a thing from you as well heres a good one for you

          Freedom cost something...... and whos the freeloader the ones who work hard and fail or the ones who just talk like there rich.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by irishjim2 (November 13, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
         
      Could Someone please point out to Newt that the following Bush Tax polocies led to the bleeding of jobs starting in October of 2007:

      2002 – Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
      2003 – Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 2004a – Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004
      2004b – American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
      2006 – Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (enacted in 2006

      So Newt it is your conservative policies that plunged our economy into the worst spot since the Great Depression. Newt not too sharp on history.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (November 13, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
      4  
      Newt Gingrich has been a liar all his life. Why should anyone expect him to tell the truth about ANYTHING?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (November 13, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
      5  
      Look at the wingers spew out their logic and emotions without the slightest connection to reality.

      The reason I want high taxes on the rich is because it works. It worked in the 1960s when we had the best economy in history with a 90% tax rate. It worked in the 1990s when Clinton's tax hike created 15 million more jobs than the next guy's tax cuts.

      I don't give a crap about redistribution or fairness. I want government to do stuff that works, and that's the end of it. Jacking up rates sky-high on the rich works every time we do it. Don't like the unemployment rate or deficit now? Wait until the Bush tax cuts expire.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
        5  
        because it works.

        Exactly. Well done.

        But for the nutjobs, they have to weigh a working economy against their hatred of welfare queens and freddie freeloaders gettin' somethin' for nuthin'.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 6:09 pm ET)
            7
          It's so moronic, it's laughable. It works. What is the incentive, genius, for anyone to earn money, or become rich, if they have thieves like you that don't give a crap about the sky high tax rates you want levied on them? Think about that for a minute when you go to the trough for their money.

          If you and Steeve earned your own living and weren't dependent on a government having to steal others' money, or having it do "stuff", you would wise up and realize money doesn't grow on rich people's trees.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
            6  
            Theives? Dependent? Steal others' money?

            Resorting to unsubstantiated name calling means you've lost the debate.

            If you're against redistribution of wealth, are you against the redistribution upward over the past 8 years that has resulted in the top 90% of the nation's wealth being owned by 1% of the people?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
          6
        It shows what little you know about economies, the 60's were a result of Kennedy cutting the tax rates, and the 90's were a result of Reagan doing the same thing. So high taxes do absolutely the opposite of what you claim. But then again, you don't give a crap about fairness in taxation, so why should you in your ridiculous assertions concerning history.

        What an asinine post, from top to bottom.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
          6  
          you don't give a crap about fairness in taxation,

          What is fairness in taxation? Please Tommy, educate me.

          And, I call your fairness and raise that you don't give a crap about:

          Truth
          History
          Logic
          Reasoning

          Notice you didn't mention Bush's tax cuts. How'd that work out?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 6:15 pm ET)
              6
            What a stupid question. Why would you ask if you agree with Steeve, that you don't give a crap about fairness anyway?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 6:25 pm ET)
              5  
              I really want to know. What is fairness in taxation?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (November 13, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
                  7
                If I told you I don't give a crap about the environment and then asked you to tell me your plans to reduce carbon emissions, what would you tell me? Grow up.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (November 13, 2009 6:52 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Nice dodge, but fail as usual. It was steeve, not me, who said he didn't give a crap about fairness.

                  Reading is fundamental. I know. I learned it before I grew up. How about you?

                  I still want to know, in a train-wreck sorta way, how your mind works. What is, in your opinion, fairness in taxation?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (November 14, 2009 12:55 am ET)
                    4  
                    Too late, he was gone for the day - 6:30 PM Eastern time or 7 at the latest appears to be his limit.

                    It never matters if he's in the middle of a debate.

                    It's just another sign he's a paid troll - the rest of us just can't quit MMFA (h/t to Brokeback Mtn) at some arbitrary quittin' time.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (November 13, 2009 9:20 pm ET)
          4  
          "It shows what little you know about economies, the 60's were a result of Kennedy cutting the tax rates"

          Tommy used to use this argument too. What you both forget is that Kennedy lowered taxes slightly to something like 70% and closed all the loopholes the nation's elite used to evade taxes. Before Kennedy closed all those loopholes, the wealthy were paying something closer to a 30% effective tax rate. In essence, JFK, raised taxes on them by not allowing them to get away with skipping out on their taxes. So you seem to be the one who knows very little about economies and chronology for that matter, Reagan wasn't president during the 90's. and his tax cuts were done away with until W. came to town.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (November 13, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
          4  
          Pretty good economy in the 50s too. Kennedy's tax rates turn your hair white. And your side predicted doom, specifically predicting a massive loss of jobs, when Clinton raised taxes. So Reagan's mysterious supernatural hand wasn't reaching that far.

          "What is the incentive for anyone to become rich" -- don't care, because in real life people work hard and become rich during times of high taxes. Real life is what shuts wingers up and finishes the debate. Logic and fairness arguments go on forever.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (November 14, 2009 1:00 am ET)
            3  
            This argument that no one has an incentive to make more money is stupid, for the most part.

            Now, if you're a worker who goes to work 6 days a week, makes a decent wage for those 6 days and you choose to work the 7th day, you get bumped up into the next higher tax bracket, and the extra amount of money that you make for working those extra hours doesn't pay you enough to make up for the loss of family time and rest.

            But you still make more money working 6 days a week than you would just working 5.

            It always pays to work more. Always. There's never a time when it doesn't pay to work more, even if you get bumped into a higher tax bracket.

            It might not pay enough more for you to make that choice to work more, but it always pays more.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by shoes89 (November 13, 2009 6:14 pm ET)
        6
      Unemployment has absolutely skyrocketed under Obama, and Gingrich's "attack" "falls flat"?

      Since when is the fact that job losses are "slowing" considered a victory?

      Pretty weak post by MM, IMHO.

      #
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.