Rachel Maddow with David Letterman, discussing Keith Olbermann, Anthony Weiner, David Vitter, and the current political environment.
Rachel Maddow, Interviewed on David Letterman’s Show (June 8, 2011)
Leave a reply
Tag Archives: GOP
My Advice To Anthony Weiner: Go Forward with Business As Usual
I have a saying: “Good advice is easy to give, but hard to take.” As a total outsider (it’s hard to be more outside The Beltway than I am), I have some advice for you, Anthony Weiner, which you can take or leave, and it’s this: Go back to business as usual in the House.
Continue reading
Wise Words for Weiner Critics: “Judge not, that ye be not judged”
“Judge not, lest ye be judged.” A common misquote, I’m told, of Matthew 7:1 (“Judge not, that ye be not judged. “). Wise words, either way.
When should someone’s personal peccadillos materially matter to us? When is it actually fair to hold someone to a higher standard than we perhaps hold ourselves? When should it reach the level of ‘a scandal’? When should we care?
Continue reading
Rep. Anthony Weiner: Great Video Moments On The House Floor [VIDEO]
In my opinion, some of the great and courageous moments ever seen in House debate.
A total of 3 4 videos [Last video added 10-Aug-2013]:
7m 08s
Potpourri:Stuff you should see
Well, it’s that time again. Lots of interesting articles have crossed my path, but I can’t post or comment on all of them, so it’s time for another series of what I might call “Potpourri Posts”. Or maybe I should just call them “Post-pourris”?
(Suggestions for titles are invited.)
You can go to the different articles by clicking on the links embedded in their titles.
A Soldier Speaks, From Tomfoolery (@OTOOLEFAN)
Originally posted on TOMFOOLERY (otoolefan.wordpress.com). To see the original post and read viewers’ comments, click on the title link below. – Mike
_____________________________________
A Soldier Speaks
The following comment was posted on this site a few weeks ago and it’s eloquence speaks for itself. The only thing I would add to this is we saw a similar scenario played out by the GOP right before Christmas. They were all about 9/11 and it’s heroes, until it came time to come to the aid of sick and dying first responders. – OTOOLEFAN
I am a totally disabled veteran, there are actually very few of us who are totally disabled.
Needless to say. I wish the liberals would take the credit they deserve. Liberals do more to support veterans disabled veterans than the right does. The right actually hates disabled vets.
The real issue is that people equate defense spending and supporting the military with supporting veterans. Veterans do not benefit one dime from defense spending.
We rely on the VA, and the pyramid of federal and state aid programs. IT IS THE LIBERALS WHO SUPPORT ME. And not any of the patriotic charities that raise tons of money under the guise of supporting veterans.
I really don’t get involved in politics. But I live in Delaware and Christine O’Donnell and the 9/12 patriots attacked me, so I did get involved. ( Meet Sen Kerry at a Chris Coons Event ).
So liberals, take your credit, there are alot of disabled vets that understand this so please take your props.
Airborne18
Is it time to consider internationally supervised elections in the United States?
[Update, April 2, 2012: Another embarrassing and inexcusable election scandal in Florida. Palm Beach Elections Overturned After Hand-Count Reveals Op-Scans Mistallied Results. As Brad Friedman’s article further suggests, we MUST have a verifiable paper trail for all election tallies have a physical count of ballots by humans before an election is certified. ]
[Update, June 13, 2011: This piece is made even more relevant by the recount discoveries and legal challenges surrounding the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections – Mike]
In 2000, the United States experienced a very close and heavily contested presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Bush won a minority of popular votes, but after legal challenges were exhausted, he had a majority of the Electoral College, giving him the election. Enough serious questions were left forever unanswered to shake Americans’ confidence in the honesty of the election outcome. The result was Continue reading
Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan: A Quick 5 Word Summation
Change you can bereave in.
“The Investigator” (1954): An Audio Satire of Senator Joe McCarthy
“The Investigator” is a scathing satire of Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) and his eponymously named ‘witch hunts’ for commies behind every bush and tree.
In the late 1950s, when I was in my late ‘ones’, my friend from across the street played this record for me. I didn’t understand it at the time, but we listened to it several more times over the years, and little by little its significance became apparent to me.
Because this work is so little known and I think the history surrounding it matters even more than the piece itself, I’m posting the article on my site Continue reading
6 Basic Differences Between Democrats and Republicans
Democrats: Scandals are about sex and drugs.
Republicans: Scandals are about money and abuse of power. (Although they’ve progressed. They now include sex.)
Democrats: Tax and spend.
Republicans: Borrow and spend.
Democrats: Emphasis on personal freedom and privacy, regulate business.
Republicans: Emphasis on business freedom and privacy, regulate personal freedom and privacy.
Democrats: Healthcare rationed by availability.
Republicans: Healthcare rationed by wealth.
Democrats: War on Poverty
Republicans: War on the poor.
Democrats: Have no spine
Republicans: Have no shame.
FOXNews isn’t … wrong? “Old Wounds Make It Hard for Some Chinese to Find Sympathy for Japanese Victims”
Having a Chinese wife, in-laws (who experienced Japanese wartime occupation and brutality personally) and friends, I have heard from several sources that the Chinese (citizens and ethnic) have donated less to the Japanese earthquake/tsunami/reactor disaster than they did to Haiti’s terrible earthquake tragedy. Far less. Both disasters were horrible human catastrophes, but ethnic Chinese have a much harder time working up sympathy for Japan.
Why? Continue reading
Political Satire: Vote CTHULHU 2012
Maybe it’s the Mayan calendar apocalypse, maybe it’s the double-dip depression, maybe it’s just the Tea Party, but you may want to have this shirt.
Republicans Must Think That Knowledge Grows on Trees (Feb. 16, 2011)
I have long believed that America is a profoundly anti-intellectual country, in spite of the paradox of America’s belief in its technological and intellectual superiority over the rest of the world.
You hear the insults all the time, concurrent with an actual or understood sneer: Long hairs, eggheads, nerds, geeks, Ivory Tower academics, brainiacs, book worms, teacher’s pets, know-it-alls, rocket scientists.
(See this essay written by Dennis Wu, “Why Isn’t Science More Respected and Rewarding?”)
Modern conservatives seem to be the worst at this form of hypocrisy Continue reading
You watch, we decide what (Cleveland.com)
Just a little clip in a column, but mind-boggling; and concerning. It may seem like a small thing, but I see it as a form of official oppression; not by the letter of the law, but certainly in the spirit.
You watch, we decide what: The TV in the first-floor cafeteria at the Ohio Department of Transportation headquarters in Columbus (1980 W. Broad St.) has been mysteriously changed from CNN to Fox News under the new regime of Gov. John Kasich.
ODOT spokeswoman Melissa Ayers confirmed that the channel change edict was ordered up by ODOT Chief Jerry Wray. “The director said we should switch it up a little bit,” she said.
He doesn’t hate Jews. He just prefers Christians.
I’m kind of a news junkie. That’s why I post links to so many articles on this website. I’m also very picky about accuracy and facts. That’s why any article I post that sounds … peculiar … is something I’ll research first before wasting your time with it.
So when I saw this headline from ThinkProgress.org – TX GOP Official Opposes Jewish House Speaker: Christians ‘Are The People That Do The Best Jobs’ – I wanted to find and verify its source. Continue reading
Why Tax Cuts For The Rich Don’t Stimulate The Economy (Commentary, 11/12/2010)
As I promised on today’s show, this commentary includes graphics and links upon which I based this opinion. This is a slightly longer, more detailed version since I don’t have to worry about air time.
So you can do your own research and validate me … Or not. ;) Let me know what you think.
Thanks to Elizabeth, Scott and Greg for calling in and participating.
Mike
______________________________________
You’ve been hearing a lot lately about the end of the Bush tax cuts. You’ve also been hearing lots of different opinions on what we should do about it.
Extend it for everyone? Let it expire for everyone? Extend it for the middle class but not for the rich?
And then we get into, What is the middle class? What qualifies as rich? Where are the cut-offs? Who decides? Why should the rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class, or the poor?
Once we’ve thrashed that around for a while, we get to ask, Do tax cuts stimulate the economy? How much? Who gets them? Is it better for the economy to give big cuts or small ones? Are there better ways to do it? Does cutting taxes for the rich really provide an incentive for them to create jobs?
And on and on, blah, bl-blah, bl-blah.
At the end of the day, this boils down to only one question that matters: What taxing and spending policies most benefit America and the greatest number of Americans?
As you listen to this, it’s going to sound like I just want to beat up the rich with taxes, but there’s a punch line at the end that literally changes the equation.
Let’s start with some basics. And I’ll be providing links to my sources when I post this commentary on my website, ThinkwingRadio.com, so you can check them out yourself.
According to the U.S. Census, 2009 median income by state ranged from about $69,272 in Maryland to $36,646 in Mississippi. Average median for the U.S. was $49,777.
What qualifies as median income varies quite a lot depending on where you live in the United States. So based on the national Census figures, let’s call middle-income somewhere between $40k and $70k per year.
In a recently updated study, in the United States as of 2007, the top 1% of households owned 34.6% of all private wealth.
1% … 34.6% of all private wealth. In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.
The next 19% had 50.5%. So, just 20% of the people owned 85% of all the nation’s wealth. These are a lot of numbers to digest on the radio, so I’ll repeat that: Just 20% of the American people owned 85% of all the wealth.
This left only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% of American workers. That same 80% owns only 7% of total financial wealth. Let me put this another way.
If you had a pizza that was divided up like this in front of five people, 4 of them would have to share about 1/2 of a slice. That’s how wealth is divided up in this country.
According to FactCheck.org and The Tax Policy Center, those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 are projected to make up about 2 percent of households in 2010. Adjusted gross is usually a lot less than actual earnings.
It is estimated that 2% will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes.
Letting the current tax rates expire for those folks costs them nothing unless their adjusted gross income exceeds that $250,000 adjusted gross.
But you know what? While that’s all interesting, it’s actually a little besides the point. Here’s the point.
Rich people actually make more money when they pay a higher share of the tax burden. That seems counter-intuitive at first, but it makes sense when you think about it.
In a Slate.com article, Timothy Noah pulls together a lot of different sources of information into a very readable 40 page article that examines a lot of disparate data and reaches some very interesting conclusions. On Page 16 of the PDF version, there’s a particular chart based on work done by Larry M. Bartels at Princeton. I’m supplementing that chart with another which is more intuitively understood, which again will be on my website.
This data shows that under Democratic presidents, everyone makes more. Even the top 5% of earners whose marginal tax rates went up.
Reading the article, I don’t think that Noah risks suggestion as to why that is, but I think I will try.
There are lots of interesting and informative charts and graphs, but there is one that’s particularly interesting.
Under Republicans, tax rates tend to be less progressive. That’s to say that the rich pay a lower fraction of income as taxes, and that’s made up by higher taxes on people much further down the wealth chain. The result is that rich people have more money to slosh around (theoretically investing in new business and new jobs), but mostly put it into financial instruments, collectibles like art, and perhaps investments overseas.
Why? Because in spite of the Supply Side common wisdom, people in the lower 80% of earners just don’t have enough spending power for discretionary purchases. They hunker down. And that’s why Supply Side economics is a fundamentally flawed theory.
Rich people don’t invest money until there’s demand for whatever product or service they want to provide.
The 80% of cash-strapped Americans can’t create much new demand, so the rich bide their time and do other things with their money. The rich stay rich, buy don’t tend to get much richer because they have no customers. Most of them still save their money and invest it in economically non-productive assets like land, art, etc., perhaps even sending surplus assets overseas for international investments.
Under Democrats, everybody makes more money after taxes. The lower 80% of earners get a few more dollars in their checks every week, and they tend to spend it. The rich pay a few more dollars in taxes from their income, and are annoyed, but not much hurt.
But here’s the magic! Because rich people take more of the tax bullet for the average Joe, Joe has more money to spend. Joe buys gifts for the wife and kids. Maybe Joe can now qualify for a mortgage on a new small house or a modest car loan. Joe’s not feeling rich, but he feels like he’s got a little room to breathe, and so much stuff is wearing out, or the kids need new clothes and stuff. Joe is grateful to have the money to buy those things which will make his family’s life better. It’s called ‘pent-up demand’, and Joe’s got plenty of that.
So Joe, and his neighbor and his trash collector and his sales clerk all have a few more bucks every week, and they all have pent-up demand.
Rich people notice this. Their money has been pretty much parked in financial instruments with low-but-safe yields. Their stocks have been languishing, though, because the companies they own haven’t had any customers… Until after the middle class tax cut.
Suddenly, things are picking up. Store stocks are running a bit slow, so they place bigger orders which put’s more folks back to work, and they have their pent-up demand, and now the cycle has been flipped and is once again heading uphill.
What we see here is the fundamental failure of the Supply Side Model of economics. No entrepreneur will invest in a business until he sees potential demand. Customers with extra money in their pockets ARE that demand.
This might be called the “Rising Tides Lifts All Boats” side of economics.
Under Democratic leadership, taxation becomes more progressive, which is a nicer way of saying that the rich bite the bullet and take a larger share of the tax burden in the interests of the greater good.
On its face, on an abstract philosophical level, that seems unfair. But IS it unfair if the rich end up also making more money at higher tax rates?
Let me try to summarize this for you, but remember: I’m going to be posting all this online with my links and side notes. That way, if you want to dig deeper and reach your own conclusions, you can.
In the chart I have in front of me, over a span from 1948-2005, a span of 57 years, every income group did better under Democratic presidents, including the rich.
Under Democratic presidents, the highest 5% of earners made an extra 0.2%/yr.
- The Top 20% made an extra 1% per year.
- The top 40% made 1.4%
- The Bottom 40% did better by 1.7%
- The bottom 20% did better by a whopping 2.2%/year
And the reason that the rich did better by sharing more of the tax burden? Because their investments were worth more. Their businesses did better, so their stock prices went up. With increased business activity, their savings and financial instruments became worth more and their interest yields grew.
In this sense, taxes on the rich — whatever your views about the justice of a progressive tax system — turns out to be a good investment for the country AND the rich.
In 1953, GM President Charles Wilson was testifying before Congress for the position of Secretary of Defense. When asked a question about potential conflicts of interest, Wilson’s actual but frequently misquoted response was “… for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa”.
This is how we all have to see it, especially those with wealth who are understandably concerned about their taxes. “What’s good for America is good for the Rich, and vice versa.”
_____________________________________________________________
[NOTE: Click on graph image for larger version. Click here for Rachel Maddow’s video explanation about it. – MH]
State Median Income http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/index.html
American Community Survey
- State Median Family Income by Family Size [XLS – 49k]
- State Median Family Income by Numbers of Earners In Family [XLS – 41k]
Annual Social and Economic Supplement
- Income of Households by State Using 2-Year-Average Medians [XLS – 37k]
- Income of Households by State Using 3-Year-Average Medians [XLS – 27k]
- Income of Households by State Ranked from Highest to Lowest Using 3-Year Average [XLS – 27k]
Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009
Page 7 (PDF 12)
INCOME IN THE UNITED STATES
Highlights
- The real median household income in 2009 was $49,777, not statistically different from the 2008 median (Table 1 and Figure 1).
- Real median income declined by 1.8 percent for family households and increased 1.6 percent for nonfamily households between 2008 and 2009 (Table 1).
Household Income for States: 2008 and 2009 (Total of 4 pages, PDF)
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-2.pdf
American Community Surveys (ACS)
Real median household income in the United States fell between the 2008 and 2009 ACS— decreasing by 2.9 percent from $51,726 to $50,221. State estimates in the 2009 ACS ranged from $69,272 in Maryland to $36,646 in Mississippi.4 The median household incomes were lower than the U.S. median in 29 states and higher in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Wisconsin had a median household income of $49,993, which was not significantly different from the U.S. median.
Let’s Talk About The Tax Increase That Has Republicans Up In Arms
Posted on November 9, 2010 by ThinkWingRadio
Below is a reprint of a piece I published here on September 3, 2010. Given the results of the last elections, and the Republicans’ announcements about their new tax priorities, I thought it deserved to be brought back to the front of the posting list.
Pay special attention to my observations that the tax increase will NOT affect families with incomes over $250,000. It will affect families with TAXABLE ADJUSTED GROSS incomes over $250,000. If you make enough money to get taxed on that amount, you must also know how much pre-tax income that actually represents; I’d guess a personal pre-tax gross of around $350,000 to $500,000 per year, easy.
That’s really a whole different ballgame from the way this story is usually framed by the Republicans, and perhaps misapprehendied by the Democrats.
What particularly brings this back to mind for me is that on Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” (Monday, 11/9/2010, last day without Keith :), Pulitzer Prize-winning tax reporter David K. Johnston, professor at Syracuse University of Law, was being interviewed on this very topic when this particularly came up. It was gratifying to hear a recognized expert finally bring up this salient point on a major media outlet. Aside from my September 3rd mention, he is the only other person I’ve heard or read who has publicly brought up this critical detail. I was beginning to think I might be the one mistaken
Nope. Not this time. I hope you’ll give me some points for prescience on this issue.
Mike
Now … My original piece is below. You can see the interview video on MSNBC Countdown here.
____________________________________________________
Posted on September 3, 2010 by ThinkWingRadio
I was just listening to an interview of Carly Fiorina in California. She was moaning and groaning about this tax increase that will occur when the Bush tax cuts expire.
Let’s put some numbers to the crocodile tears:
When the tax cuts expire, if you are a single person making an adjusted gross income up to $200,000.00 per year, your tax increase will be exactly … $0!
If you are a couple making an adjusted gross income up to $250,000.00 per year, your tax increase will be exactly … $0! So up to a quarter of a million dollars per year adjusted gross income, this tax change will not affect you at all.
If you are couple making an adjusted gross income of $300,000.00 per year, the additional taxes on that extra $50,000.00 will be exactly … $1,500.00!
If you make a million dollars or more per year adjusted gross income … Well, quitcher bitchin’.
What do you think?
Mike
FoxNEWS Reveals Cynical Republican Election Strategy for 2010
In an article originally generated by the Associated Press and published on the FoxNEWS website, the cynical strategy originated by the Republicans after Obama’s 2008 election is revealed. Selected excerpts from the article:
All but wiped out in 2008, Republicans groping for a comeback strategy determined there would be no swift return to economic health under incoming President Obama.
They soon also agreed privately to oppose his major legislation. Over the next two years, they criticized, attacked, voted against and then attacked some more as Democrats struggled to pass an economic stimulus measure, health care legislation and a bill to rein in Wall Street.
Unemployment, 7.4 percent when Obama took office, soared to 10.1 percent, then barely budged for months.
On Election Day, those calculations made in Republican suites in the Capitol reaped dividends that must have seemed almost unimaginable even to the architects of their strategy: a gain of 60-plus House seats, enough to win a majority and end two years of Democratic dominance in Congress, as well as six new seats in the Senate.
… Many economists agree the economic stimulus, with its combination of tax cuts, aid to states and federal spending on construction and other areas, did create jobs. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress in July that “we should maintain our stimulus in the short term” to strengthen the recovery and help reduce unemployment.
It was not a point Republicans chose to acknowledge.
… Republicans correctly foresaw that unemployment would rise, and that if the economy remained weak, Obama and Democrats would get little or no credit from the voters for having stopped a near collapse. The GOP would not have fared so well if voters had agreed with leading economists who said things would have been much worse without those actions, or if Obama’s economic fixes had hastened the recovery.
… Ten months later, victorious Republicans met to plan their transition to power in the House — just as it was announced that the economy created 151,000 jobs.
The original article can be found here on FoxNEWS.com. In the event of any changes, a PDF of the original article can be read here.
