“Registering [the poor] to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country — which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote. […] Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn’t about helping the poor. It’s about helping the poor to help themselves to others’ money.” -Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum
John Stossel (Fox News):“Let’s stop saying everyone should vote.”
Rush Limbaugh:“If people cannot even feed and clothe themselves, should they be allowed to vote?”
Judson Phillips (Tea Party Nation):“If you’re not a property owner, I’m sorry, but property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than not property owners do.”
The “Bush tax cuts” should really be the “Obama tax cuts” at this point. The fact that FOX News (specifically Hannity) rants about the “massive tax hikes” of this administration just shows they’re misleading their viewers for hopeful political gain. Fine. Fair enough, and expected. Still, if Obama beat his chest a bit about all the tax cuttin’ he’s done, well…
Anyway, a bit from the article:
Obama may finally have beaten Republicans at their own game. A party that prides itself on advocating for tax cuts will have a hard time lining up against the extension of the payroll tax and other business sweeteners larded into the jobs bill. Obama’s embrace of tax cuts seems to fly in the face of Democratic orthodoxy, but liberal economists say the president’s approach has been much more strategic and is about trying to get money into the pockets of the middle class to boost the economy.
Great article on Warren and where her authentic populism comes from. It’s a great read that will get you up to speed on what an ideal Progressive candidate looks like.
Although heavily lobbied by leading Democrats to run, Warren was warned by many that the fight would be brutal. Even her brother David told her, “Don’t do this, it’s too nasty.” Looking back on her time in Washington, though, and the months she spent setting up and fighting for the C.F.P.B., she says, “I’ve done brutal.”
Good write-up on what to say to those who disparage and insult the Occupy Wall Street protesters… Here’s a humdinger from the article:
2. They say "They hate businesses!" You say ”No, they hate parasitical businesses.”
Want to know something ironic? If the demonstrators had their way, most businesses in this country would actually do better. Why? Because the banks aren’t lending to anybody but the mega-corporations who are already sitting on a ton of cash.
If the system was reformed, banks would lend to those smaller and medium-sized businesses that actually hire people. What’s more, debt relief for the American consumer would unleash a buying wave that would spur widespread economic growth.
These “anti-business” protesters would be great for businesses — all, that is, except for the dishonest and socially useless ones. You know, like the ones that underwrite politicians, think tanks, and television networks - who then proceed to make fun of demonstrations, as they’re paid to do.
Steve Benen- cannot say this enough- is the most prolific blogger out there. If you haven’t checked his blog out, just go to www.washingtonmonthly.com and see for yourself. This post of his is spot-on as usual:
President Obama, for nearly three years, adopted precisely the same style he presented to voters during the 2008 campaign. He expressed a willingness to compromise and meet rivals half-way; Obama gave Republican officials key positions in his administration; he was careful not to overreach in his proposals; and the president generally avoided stinging, partisan rhetoric.
The rewards never materialized. Republicans slapped away Obama’s outstretched hand, and the efforts only served to annoy the president’s base. As Jeff Shesol aptly put it over the summer, “Obama declared war on partisanship in 2008, and partisanship won.”
Left with no choices, the president has adopted a more confrontational posture. He’s blasting Republicans, calling out rivals by name, and positioning himself in the role of Truman running against a do-nothing Congress. The New York Times’ Mark Lander reports, voters might not like it.
While Mr. Obama’s partisan jabs appeal to his Democratic base, they may turn off independent voters, who flocked to him in 2008 in part because of his carefully cultivated image as a leader who rises above the partisan fray.
Putting aside the question of whether independent voters actually feel that way — or, for that matter, whether independent voters exist as a distinct subset of the population — I’m not sure what Obama’s supposed to do. He’s tried to compromise with Republicans, to no avail. He’s tried to adopt some Republican policies, and that hasn’t worked, either. Obama has made a good-faith effort to bend over backwards to accommodate GOP wishes, and they’ve refused to accept any concessions on any issue. Voters weren’t impressed by the efforts.
So, the president has largely given up on those efforts, only to see a NYT report suggest he’s failing to “rise above the partisan fray” the way he promised.
If that wasn’t quite depressing enough, the same article checked in with some folks at Guilford Technical Community College in Jamestown, N.C., where the president spoke yesterday. Natalie Hopkins, an administrator in the Guilford County school district, said of the president, “We want to stand behind him and support him, but at some point we also want to see forward motion.”
The president, by all appearances, wants to see forward motion, too. The point is, it’s not up to him.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) appeared on Fox News this morning to respond to reports of Moammar Gadhafi’s demise. His first instinct wasn’t to thank American troops, but rather, to thank French troops.
Today’s not a day to point fingers,” the right-wing Florida senator said. “I’m glad it’s all working out. Ultimately this is about the freedom and liberty of the Libyan people. But let’s give credit where credit is due: it’s the French and the British that led in this fight, and probably even led on the strike that led to Gadhafi’s capture, and, or, you know, to his death.
“So, that’s the first thing. The second thing is, you know, I criticize the president, for, he did the right things, he just took too long to do it and didn’t do enough of it.”
In the mind of this rising Republican star, the American military that helped drive Gadhafi’s regime from power deserves no credit at all. Marco Rubio is comfortable crediting the French, but not American men and women in uniform.
Remember hearing about the “blame America first” crowd? Well, say hello to the “thank America last” crowd.
Read Benen’s entire post here. TPM has video of Rubio not thanking our troops here.
"You have a one-half of one-percent surtax on the 1,000,0001th dollar — in other words it doesn’t affect anybody who makes $999,000, it doesn’t affect anybody making $999,999 — and if you want to find the guy who make $1,000,0001, it only affects that $1. That’s the only thing the rate goes up on," Biden explained.
This is a basic fact about marginal tax policy, but its one Republicans like to obscure.
"If you make $1.1 million, and god-willing this passes, you would pay next year, $500 more in taxes," Biden said.
Biden claimed the average income of people who earn more than $1 million a year is $3 million. The jobs bill would cost a person making that much money $10,000 in 2013 — exactly one-third of one-percent of his total income.
Great post by Greg Sargent going over the breakdown of who would actually be affected by Obama’s job policies and the revenue “hikes” to pay for them…
I asked the Citizens for Tax Justice to analyze this surtax proposal — how many taxpayers it would impact nationwide; how much they would have to pay on average in additional taxes; and what percentage of their income that would represent. CTJ graciously agreed, and calculated the numbers using their microsimulation tax model, which is described here. Here are CTJ’s totals, which would take effect in 2013:
* If the new infrastructure proposal were enacted, the surtax on millionaires would impact a grand total of 345,532 taxpayers nationwide — or 0.2 percent of American taxpayers.
*If the new infrastructure proposal were enacted, the 0.7 percent surtax would amount to all of $13,457 on average for the millionaires that would pay it. Given that their average income is $2,923,000, this means they would be paying on average an additional 1/217 of their overall income, or just over an additional 0.4 percent. That’s less than one half of one percent.
This number, obviously, would have been even smaller if the state aid package — with an even smaller millionaire surtax — had passed.
* In a large majority of states, fewer than 5,000 taxpayers in each state would feel these surtaxes. In around half the states, fewer than 3,000 in each would be impacted. In most states, 0.2 percent or fewer of taxpayers would pay the surtax.
You can view a state by state breakdown of the data right here, so you can fully appreciate how small a percentage of each senator’s constituents would actually pay more in taxes under these proposals. (The column detailing the average tax hike that would result was calculated using the original American Jobs Act’s provision of a 5.6 percent millionaire surtax; to get the smaller surtax that would be paid for each individual provision now getting voted on, simply divide. The percentage of taxpayers who would pay this doesn’t change)
The breakdowns of what Sargent links to are well worth taking a look at. Call your representatives/Senators and ask them to side with their constituents.
Yikes! Quite the Cain ad! I mean, since when did a presidential contender think it was a good idea to feature one of his lead advisors his Chief of Staff taking a drag from a cigarette? Since, well, today I guess. And, no, this isn’t the tail of a scene- this is a blatant cut to him puffing and exhaling! Classy. The kids will think it is soooo cool! I’d read The Rude Pundit’s take on this, and it’s apt as usual:
At the opening of “Now is the time,” an unlisted video on presidential candidate Herman Cain’s YouTube channel, we see the face of a man, a middle-aged white man with glasses and a mustache and silvering hair, and he’s speaking very sincerely to us. What does he want? On first blush, we might assume he is about to confess something to us, perhaps an unspeakable lust for young boys for, indeed, he looks as if he knows his way around an illegal chat room or two. But, no. He is the chief of staff for Cain’s campaign, and he is imploring us to rally to his man’s side. When he is finished speaking, music surges. “I am America,” a female voice sings, and we see a close-up of the man as he sucks on a cigarette and then blows smoke out of the corner of his mouth, his eyes staring at us as if we are strippers on a stage, spreading our legs for his inspection. The video ends with Herman Cain looking serious and then slowly, slyly smiling. It is the look of a father about to get pleasure from spanking his own child’s bare bottom. In fact, the whole of the ad seems to say: "These men are stalking you, and you will probably need a restraining order in order to survive the weekend."
Take a moment and dwell on the drag and exhale: This cat has minimal lung capacity, or he’s not really a smoker.
President Barack Obama’s “tsunami” of new government regulations looks more like a summer swell.
Obama’s White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News. […]
Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg.
I don’t recall the squeals from the right about job-killing regulations strangling the economy in 2003. Perhaps I missed it.