Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
We had one of those big tea party protests in Lansing, Michigan on Wednesday and it included an appearance by the Kato Kaelin of politics, Joe the Plumber. My friend and colleague Todd Heywood was on the scene and filed a report at the Michigan Messenger. He said Joe the Plumber wouldn't speak to him because he said he was there for "the little guy" and not the media.
Let me translate that with the help of my Pathetic Loser to English dictionary: "Every time I open my mouth to a reporter, I say something that makes me look like a fucking moron. So I'm not talking to the media anymore." But that didn't stop him from saying really stupid things to the crowd, like this:
"Let me give you another extremist view, 'In God We Trust,'" he said to wild applause. "Say that too loud in some parts of America and you will be shot. It's terrible."
Gotta love that ridiculous fake martyr complex that the right so often displays. Perhaps Joe could mention just one person who's been shot for saying "In God we trust." I bet he can't. On the other hand, I can name several people who've been the victims of violence and death threats for wanting to keep government out of the religion business and preserve the separation of church and state. But those are facts, of course, and this group is entirely immune to facts.
Here are some of the vile signs on display at the rally:
Yeah. So did Reagan, of course. And Kennedy.
You have to laugh at the logical inconsistencies on display here. A 39% tax rate on the wealthiest people in the country is slavery, but 36% is not? It was 39% in the 90s too, were we all slaves then? Hell, it was much higher in the 80s. Were we slaves under Reagan? I guess 39% is only slavery if there's a black man in the White House. How ironic.
Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would think you're a bunch of gun nuts. I support gun rights and support the second amendment, but when you go out of your way to carry a gun while rallying with cries like this:
You scare the shit out of me and other sane people.
Politics
Comments
I love how the "Revolution or Death" sign has the Dutch flag on it. Somehow, I don't think that's the image he wanted to convey...
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 16, 2009 9:27 AM
Hmmm...why has that last guy got a flag of the Netherlands on his sign? Must be an Obamo-fascist-Islamo-Socilaisto-Commmie.
Posted by: Dave S. | April 16, 2009 9:28 AM
Hitler gave ranting speeches to cheering crowds pretending to be oppressed, too.
See? I can make vague, inappropriate comparisons just as well as they can.
Posted by: Paul | April 16, 2009 9:38 AM
Joe is just the latest in a long line of folks to make maximum fame out of minimal talent via an association with a much more famous individual or organization, following in the footsteps of Yoko Ono, Tom Arnold, William Hung, Sarah Palin and Mr. Kaelin.
Posted by: ??? | April 16, 2009 9:40 AM
According to these folks Eisenhower with his 90% tax rate would be the biggest communist there ever was.
Haven't heard of anyone getting shot for saying "In God We Trust" in this country. You can still get beaten up and murdered for being gay though, even if you're not.
Posted by: Imrryr | April 16, 2009 9:41 AM
The white stripe has "six stars of rebellion."
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | April 16, 2009 9:46 AM
It's interesting how, when Bush was in office, the least bit of criticism was considered un-American, but it's perfectly fine to call Obama a fascist, compare him with Hitler, use slogans of "Revolution or Death" and talk openly (and seriously, at least for some of the wingnuts) of secession.
Posted by: mathyoo | April 16, 2009 10:04 AM
Carrying a gun on your belt in the middle of a protest? That's f*cking stupid. I would not have guessed that it is legal.
Posted by: jake | April 16, 2009 10:10 AM
the Kato Kaelin of politics, Joe the Plumber
Spot on.
Posted by: James F | April 16, 2009 10:19 AM
Do NOT put Joe the Plumber in the same category as Tom Arnold! Tom at least gave us True Lies; Plumber Joe has given us nothing.
And that should tell you how far the Republican party has fallen, when the world's only Tom Arnold fan (for good reason) won't stand for comparisons to these losers. Ouch.
Posted by: David | April 16, 2009 10:21 AM
‘In God We Trust.’ I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true. - Mark Twain
Posted by: Hal in Howell MI | April 16, 2009 10:28 AM
This is what teabagging is all about, damn wikipedia! it lied to me!!
Posted by: Ed Burke | April 16, 2009 10:49 AM
Gotta look on the upside, though: The crazier, the scarier, the more out of touch these people appear, the less likely that they'll be able to sucker the center into voting for their destructive insanity. And it IS destructive. And it IS insane. And every time I think they've maxed out their hypocrisy quotient, they push it ever higher.
Posted by: gary l. day | April 16, 2009 11:05 AM
looks like the GOP has maxed out the credibility credit card.
Cometh 2010, cometh the Repo-men. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 16, 2009 11:18 AM
While I reject everything the Teabaggers stand for, it's a bit disengenuous to compare nominal tax rates between now and Eisenhower's top marginal rate. A far better approach would be to compare effective federal tax rates between periods. This is important since how income is reported and what deductions, credits, et. al. are available change over time. Such an analysis pounds home the absurdity of the Teabaggers vents even more than ever, unless they want a significant tax increase while maintaining the top tax rates.
While I was not able to find a chart or table that goes back to Eisenhower, see this CBO report from 1979 - 2001: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5324/04-02-TaxRates.htm
Here are some of the top & bottom quintile's "Total Effective Rate", which is calculating the percentage of federal taxes paid relative to pre-tax net income:
Top quintile effective rate noted first, bottom quintile rate noted to the right of the top:
1979 (Carter/Dem Congress) - 27.5% - 8%
1988 (Reagan/Dem Congress) - 25.6% - 8.5% (though the poor paid 25% more in some of these years)
2000 (Clinton/Rep Congress) - 28% - 6.4%
2005 Bush/GOP Congress - 25.5 - 4.3%
The 2005 rates comes from a spreadsheet I downloaded at the CBO site here which goes back to 1979: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8885
Also - the total effective rate for all Americans was 22.2% in '79, Reagan cut it about 10% in his first term but raised it back to 21% after that failed to generate adequate economic growth to pay for his tax cuts (his boondoggle into supply side economics). The total rate was around 22 - 23% during the Clinton years and 20 - 21% in the Bush years. Walking through the entire table also leads to a clear conclusion - the poorest 80% are clearly paying less in taxes while the top quintile are also paying slightly less.
One huge flaw of even this model that's especially punitive to the poorest among us:
When Americans spend money on goods and services, those goods and services have a price component that averages about 22 - 24% to meet the supply chain's needs to cover its federal tax liablities (mostly corporate income tax and federal employer witholding taxes). So everyone is actually taxed higher on their federal taxes than what I note here and what I suspect most even realize. This tax hurts the poor far more than it does the rich given the concept of marginal utility (a $1 tax is far more punitive to a poor person then a rich person). I have yet to see a really accurate representation of what people pay in federal taxes. These links are the best I've found.
One other item to note - the lowest 80% of earners have a correlation between the rate they pay that is almost exactly the same as the rate of pre-tax income they earn out of all pre-tax income generated in America. For example, the lowest quintile earns 4.3% of the country's income while paying an effective rate of 3.9%. The highest quintile's percentage of pre-tax net income is disproporationately high at 55.7% of all pre-tax income relative to its effective tax rate of 25.6%. To get this link (I'm at my max of two links already, type in the following but take out the @ sign in front of "http://". Here's the link, take out the @ first, then copy and paste: @firsthttp://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=226
Surely such radical changes as that which Obama proposes is cause for a populist revolution!!! What is clear here is this: the very richest people in the country continue to play the very dumbest people in America to do their bidding. I don't think they'll win this time. I got a hunch the vast majority of Americans prefer Obama and his team of economists than they do to Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 16, 2009 11:28 AM
Speaking of gun-carrying teabaggers, I found this gem by Doug TenNapel (of Earthworm Jim fame) on the Fox News blogs:
My family is safe among the over-taxed people. Hopefully, there will be a higher percentage of conceal and carriers … all the more American.
Somehow TenNapel feels safer among gun-toting nutcases than among the "freaks" that show up at librul rallies.
Posted by: wheatdogg | April 16, 2009 11:42 AM
@ wheatdogg
Maybe that's because TenNapel feel ostracized when attending such rallies. Remember that ostracism was one of the biggest forms of punishment doled out in ancient Greece. Even a gun-toting non-rational (not necessarily talking about TenNapel here, since I've never met the the person), has little power over the cold-shoulders of the masses. Better, then, to just go back to the warm loving embraces of others with similar feelings.
Of course, that could be said of the other side (and the middle) as well.
Posted by: Umlud | April 16, 2009 12:06 PM
@ Michael Heath.
I've not run the numbers, but US PIRG did some research into the corporate tax loopholes, and determined that over $100bn is not paid by US corporations.
Their brief (as well as an admittedly small map of state-by-state non-payments by corporations) is here: http://www.uspirg.org/issues/tax-and-budget/close-corporate-tax-loopholes (No, I don't know why Michigan is colored two different colors in the second of the two maps.)
Of course, you didn't see this being protested in the so-called "grassroots" events.
Another thing you didn't see at these events (at least when I went and looked at the pictures): non-white people.
So... white people "suddenly" (after a lot of cash infusions from the massively biased Heritage Foundation and other anti-Democratic Party groups) are all mad about federal taxation with representation, massive government bailouts that began under a conservative Republican president, the vague notion that there might be a loss of gun rights sometime in the future, the loss of civil liberties that began eroding in major ways under Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush, oh, and Obama is Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Marx...
So... this is a national grassroots campaign that doesn't include non-whites, has no central theme (other than a general sense of malaise), and a lot of top-down sponsorship from highly political anti-Democratic Party groups. Please let me know if I'm wrong here...
(Now, I'll admit that I didn't look through photos from Florida or in the southern border states which are mostly minority-majority states to see whether more minorities came out to teabag the federal government.)
Posted by: mercurianferret | April 16, 2009 12:24 PM
mercurianferret, Fox News covered a tea party in Atlanta last night. As near as I could figure out, it was entirely white people.
In Atlanta, Georgia.
I'll just let that sink in.
Posted by: Technogeek | April 16, 2009 12:32 PM
mercurianferret - for the life of me I'm not sure what point you made that you wanted me to consider. I'm not sure if you're supporting or refuting one of my points or merely using it to go off-topic on another point altogether. Sorry, perhaps you could illmuninate us?
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 16, 2009 12:50 PM
OK, I'm a Conservative and I attended the Tea Party in Troy, Michigan yesterday. While I respectfully disagree with your politics, Ed, you are VERY FUNNY!! I love the "Pathetic Loser to English dictionary!" I couldn't stop laughing!
Meanwhile, while I will grant you that there are a few crazies out there (like how the left has their Cindy Sheehans and PETA folks), the point of the Tea Parties for people like me was simply to protest the SPENDING of government money more than the taxation. The fact that we the taxpayers are the ones who are SUPPORTING the government bailouts, stimulus plans, entitlement programs, wars, etc., then we should have some say in how that money is spent. Yes, I know we're represented in Congress and we get to vote in elections. But the recent increases in government spending which began during the Bush administration and has continued into Obama's administration with a vengeance, are a concern for those of us who are now seeing tax increases just beginning. If you think that 39% income tax is going to be enough to finance the escalating debt, then you're kidding yourself. At this rate, it will NEVER be paid off, and future generations will be paying higher and higher taxes in order to simply pay the interest on the debt. THAT is my particular problem. I have no problem with Obama as a person or as a president. In fact, I have no personal problems with anyone in Congress. I'd just like to see them all dial down the spending a little. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: David Weissman | April 16, 2009 1:07 PM
I don't think its too much to ask, Mr. Weissman. Evidently it is too much to ask that we not spend more money on the dept. of terror, er war, er defense, than the rest of the world combined.
I am not attributing this attitude to you, sir; just to those who called themselves "nuts-in-mouth" protesters yesterday.
Posted by: jws | April 16, 2009 1:12 PM
David Weissman,
While I think your panic at our level of indebtedness is overblown, I might have agreed with you on general principle years ago when we were at full employment. As it stands, I'm disappointed (if not surprised) to find the conservative opposition to deficit spending appearing only now, when countercyclical spending is likely to be a good idea.
So far, we seem to have it backwards. Sinking deep into debt when our output is high and then hoping to cut back and balance things when output is low is not a winning formula.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | April 16, 2009 1:50 PM
Mr. Weissman - Given you have a problem with federal spending in this recession; do you propose we increase our taxes to match our current spending obligations? Or do you propose we cut government spending, which would also cause federal debt to rise since aggregate demand would fall, resulting in millions of additional jobs lost, which would then cause federal tax revenues to crash given a far weaker economy (unless you made draconian cuts in defense, Social Security, and Medicare).
How exactly would you reduce government debt in this economy? I assume you realize federal revenue is not merely a function of tax rates and spending, but more importantly, a function of income available to tax. And it is that income that we are attempting to defend.
Did anyone at the rally provide an exact recipe proven to have worked in the past that would reduce debt without causing tens of millions of additional jobs to be lost and debt to increase through far smaller GDP levels? Do you perceive that the Teabaggers understand the difference between Bush's spending initiatives and Obama's? Both from a motivational standpoint and relative to their stimulative effects?
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 16, 2009 2:02 PM
Michael,
Sorry, I got distracted partway through that comment and finished at a goal that was different than the one I started heading for.
Two things, the first one relating to your point:
1) Tax loopholes by corporations cost the federal government.
2) This "grassroots" movement seemed rather more white, right-wing, and anti-Obama to me than one might expect from a more organic, reactionary grassroots movement.
Posted by: mercurianferret | April 16, 2009 2:02 PM
One wonders where the big protests were for the last 8 years. Odd that the big protests only come once their party loses, and big, leaving massive deficits and irresponsible spending tack records that in some part put us where we are and are now requiring desperate measures.
It's so very thinly veiled. This has little to do with the spending and more to do with increasing partisanship.
Never mind the fact that Fox helped organize the whole sham.
I can smell the Astroturf from here.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 16, 2009 2:04 PM
the Kato Kaelin of politics, Joe the Plumber.
Nah, you had it right before with the William Hung analogy.
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | April 16, 2009 2:06 PM
I just hope that the protesters realized the irony that they were protesting in a public park (gov't spending), protected by a police force (gov't spending) and a fire department (gov't spending). Another main point of many of these protests was littering, requiring clean-up of public parks and waterways (more gov't spending). They were protesting against socialism (but would probably not want medicare or social security to go away) and big government spending (yet didn't seem to have a problem with military spending), but didn't really decide to do so until there was a person (and Party) they didn't like in the White House (and in control of Congress).
Yes, I'm being incredulous, and why not? What I saw yesterday on the various news channels was not a major grassroots movement, but a bunch of unorganized White masses in different cities that had some sort of protest against the current administration, bailouts, and taxation. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to take this seriously as a movement. As a bunch of possibly unhinged individuals who are angry with government, some of whom also advocate for the right to conceal deadly weapons while in public (regardless of their mental stability), this I am a little more concerned about.
Posted by: mercurianferret | April 16, 2009 2:18 PM
I have no problem with Mr. Weissman's position on spending. I share his concerns about spending and I'm sure many of the people at the protests did as well. But you'd be hard pressed to notice that issue among the innumerable signs about Obama's birth certificate, immigration, being a Christian nation, and many other superfluous if not downright idiotic issues. That's why I said that if the protest was just about spending, I'd fit right in and cheer on the crowds. But looking at the protests as a whole it seems obvious that this is just some big collective spasm of rage, most of it being amplified and encouraged by right wing groups, including some of the worst fringe elements.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 16, 2009 2:56 PM
Reminds me of a left-wing friend of mine in grad school who really wanted a revolution...until I pointed out that it was her side that was anti-gun, and the hated right-wingers not only had the guns but would love an excuse to shoot lefties.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 16, 2009 3:02 PM
Ed - I too have concerns about our spending, though not regarding the amount as much as the quality of the execution in what we chose to spend it on and how well that money is expended/invested.
However, if we want to protest our current deficit spending, than I think that requires the person to explain what they would instead do and preemptively confront the challenges their plan would present. Most economists would argue that not spending now would deflate the economy even more than its shrinking and yet still create greater federal debt due to a smaller tax base with fewer jobs supporting non-discretionary spending and other obligatory spending (e.g., defense, unemployment insurance whose liabilities would increase without stimulative spending). So I have to assume that is what you want as well unless you articulate a different scenario.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 16, 2009 3:07 PM
@Michaelheath
Michael
I've pulled the data, too, and had a look. Regardless of taxes paid, and just analyzing at the income data.
Between 1979 & 2006 the poorest (bottom 20%) saw an increase in real income of 6% pre-tax and 11% post tax (based on 2006 dollars: $16,200 to $17,200; $14,900 to $16,500).
In the same timeframe, the wealthiest (top 20%) saw an increase in real income of 82% pre tax, and 86% post tax! ($136,400 to $248,400; $98,900 to $184,400)
The increases for the most wealthy are even more egregious:
Pre Tax:
top 10%: $177,800 to $366,400 (106%)
top 5%: $241,900 to $564,200 (133%)
top 1%: $534,800 to $1,743,700 (226%)
Post tax:
top 10%: $125,200 to $265,500 (112%)
top 5%: $164,900 to $400,400 (143%)
top 1%: $337,100 to $1,200,300 (256%)
In other words - the poorest saw very little change. The richest got immensely richer. Not that that is news to anyone here.
Posted by: TonyC | April 16, 2009 3:15 PM
@tonyc -
Do you have any references on that? I would like to blog on your stats, but would like to check the sources.
Not that I pretend to be a journalist, or anything....
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | April 16, 2009 3:26 PM
Protesting government spending during a recession/depression is moronic, just shy of protesting government spending during WWII.
Concern over how the money is being spent, what plans are in place to increase employment, enhance recovery efforts, pay the money back/roll back spending once the economy is stabilized, those are all logical, this is just a giant astroturf anti-Obama rally.
What concerns me is that there are increasing numbers of mainstream Republicans making arguments for rebellion and secession.
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 16, 2009 3:31 PM
1) What was security like at these protests? I've attended progressive demonstrations where there were more cops filming us protesting than there were protesters. I wonder if there's a disparity when the demonstration is more conservative.
2) I fail to see how anyone making enough to qualify for a 39% tax rate, which means they'd still be bringing home at least $152,500/year, can cry slavery. $150K is plenty for sumptuous food and vacations abroad. Whining about being taxed so highly when one is so well-off to begin with is just plain selfish and greedy.
3) Handguns? Seriously!? Handguns have no other purpose than to kill other people. They're not even useful for hunting. Sure, I support the right to own rifles and shotguns for hunting, but not handguns for the taking of human life.
4) This is further illustrative of just why it is high time I got out of MI.
Posted by: Toaster | April 16, 2009 4:01 PM
I am sick to death of middle income right wing dipshits, who do not pay a cent of taxes at the highest marginal rate, that seem to think that federal income tax is the only tax paid in this country, and that the poor pay effectively no taxes. Other than federal income tax, all other taxes in this country are regressive. Sales, property, and excise taxes make up a bigger percentage of budget the less you make. Payroll taxes (social security) is capped. The wealthiest in America pay effectively ZERO percent into this because it is capped, while the poorest in this country pay through the nose. State and local taxes (particularly in Michigan which has a flat state income tax rate) usually have a deduction, making those ever so slightly progressive, but barely for most middle class tax payers. And, let's not forget the 15% capital gains tax rate, which allows the wealthiest stock and land investors in this country to pay less than just about everyone else on a substantial portion of their income, and a lower effective tax rate than the middle income right wing dipshits screaming about socialism.
I wish I could find a good site with all that information handy with recent numbers. I spent a good amount of time looking for it, but the best information I found came from the 1980's, when those poor rich people and the pre-1987 tax rate of 50% were paying 24% effective tax, compared to the 22% effective tax of the poorest people in America. I'd appreciate some direction here if anyone knows.
Posted by: Robert Faber | April 16, 2009 4:17 PM
The data came from the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm as already discussed by Micheal Heath, earlier in the thread.
I simply looked at the provided data (in a spreadsheet 'all_tables.xls'). Specifically tab "Income Distribution All HH".
My 'index' calculation is based on the numbers presented in rows 42, 69, 73, and 100 of that table.
Posted by: TonyC | April 16, 2009 4:24 PM
dogmeatib stated
I would submit there are virtually zero mainstream Republicans; all that seems to be left are social conservatives. Associating the word "mainstream" with them is not something I would do. The party is now run by ideological idiots with only a handful of sane moderates left.
Since TonyC and Robert vented I will as well. Even though conservatives make up only about 28% of the population, why is the media doing such a poor job of fisking their claims regarding economics as well as providing the type of information several of us were easily able to generate in minutes, not hours (I assume for the others). Perspective is critical and an accurate perspective is not getting out (e.g., cutting spending in a recession is benign and would yield a far more robust recovery when in fact the opposite is true if done correctly).
I sit there watching TV News and reading my newspapers and the level of ignorance and stupidity on display by those in the media that are either unbiased or liberally biased is amazing. This goes for both economics, even at the 101 level, and Constitutional issues. On both fronts conservatives continue to pound us at the PR level.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 16, 2009 4:39 PM
lollll the person holding up HITLER GAVE GOOD SPEECHES TOO is my dad O.o awesomeness. haha.
Posted by: rachelle | April 16, 2009 6:06 PM
I wouldn't shoot him.... for that. :P
Posted by: Cart and Bra Support | April 16, 2009 7:57 PM
Depending on specifics, Samuel Wurzelbacher may be right.
If the person saying it is a muslim and the place is any rally featuring Wurzelbacher, then yes, they could very well get shot.
Posted by: tincture | April 16, 2009 9:21 PM
I'm curious about what "good speeches" Hitler gave. Every time I see clips of Hitler's speeches on old newsreel footage, he comes off across as the raving lunatic that he certainly was.
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 16, 2009 9:34 PM
If Joe is so devoted to getting one's hands dirty in an honest-to-goodness blue collar job (like plumbing), why doesn't he have one?
I mean it. How the hell does Joe spend his mornings? Watching "The View" in his underwear, with a bowl of Cap'n Crunch?
Posted by: CHV | April 16, 2009 9:42 PM
As a proud posessor of several of her albums, not to mention the more famous ones with John, I wouldn't compare Sam the Fraud to Yoko Ono. She does have some fine materal even if she does have a lot of 10 minutes of screaming and moaning while John solos.
We're all water in this vast, vast ocean
Someday we'll all evaporate together.
Posted by: teammarty | April 16, 2009 11:46 PM
I want to stand up for Yoko a bit here, too. I'll grant that her material is an acquired taste, even among those who try to listen, but at least she's a creative person. JtP doesn't seem to have much creative faculty going for him. Also, Yoko is fluent in at least two languages, while JtP can't seem to even complete a sentence without great affront to his native English.
Posted by: Jon Lester | April 17, 2009 2:25 AM
Jon Lester:
But Joe the (Really,really wanted to be a) Plumber probably has a far greater understanding of the effects of gravity on the hydro dynamic distribution profile of post-consumption bio-effluent than Ms. Ono-Lennon ever will!
Posted by: democommie | April 17, 2009 7:11 AM
Yoko is fluent in at least two languages
Three, if you count "wailing".
Posted by: ??? | April 17, 2009 9:20 AM
Missing the point?
Glenn Beck addressed the folks at the Tea Party in Texas last Wednesday, and pissed on the Democrat AND Republican parties, which met with huge cheers from the crowd. This isn't about a "Right-Wing" conspiracy . . . it's about the fact that my labor is my property and not the property of the Socialists in Washington, D.C who call themselves Democrats and Republicans.
So let's be clear . . . you'll get your "peace" when we get our "freedom" back.
We just went through three Civil Wars with the last three Presidential elections and nobody hardly noticed, since there was no blood in the streets. We are more divided now than we were in 1860's.
Slavery is higher around the world than the 1860's, but does anyone notice or care. Does the media cover slavery in the factories of India, China, Thailand? I've been there, I've seen it first hand.
So stick your heads in the sand, and your butts in the air, a fight is brewing and it's about FREEDOM . . . FREEDOM for all Americans, FREEDOM and justice around the world, regardless of race, color, religion, age, etc . . . now that's REAL climate change!
Posted by: Jeff McQueen | April 17, 2009 9:40 AM
I have exactly zero respect for Glenn Beck. And a couple hundred, and sometimes a thousand or two people in each state hardly constitutes "the absence of peace". If you want real demonstrations try looking at the protests held during the Vietnam War.
@Michael Heath - Thanks for clearing that up for me regarding tax rates.
Posted by: Imrryr | April 17, 2009 11:06 AM
Jeff McQueen - What percentage of your income do you think would be a fair federal tax rate for you to pay? What should the fair effective rate averaged across all taxpayers be? Do you think we should go to your rate immediately or wait until after GDP and job growth are both increasing?
If you propose cutting tax revenues, please explain how you would cut spending given the resulting federal tax revenue shortfall, not just from the cut in taxes, but also in the resulting drop of GDP given the point in the economic cycle we find ourselves in. Here are the categories which make up the bulk of federal spending: defense, Social Security, and Medicare.
For example, if you cut a trillion out of the tax rate, that would equate to at least a $1.5 trillion drop in federal revenues given the resulting drop in GDP and increased loss of jobs (who stop paying income and withholding taxes). So where we cut $1.5 trillion? If you disagree with multiplier estimate of $500 billion, that's fine, I agree its conservative, where would you cut $2 trillion out of the aprox. $4 trillion federal budget?
Also, if you propose cutting taxes which will drive down GDP, do you propose we don't pay any new unemployment insurance given the millions of people that would lose their jobs? Would you also cut food stamps? I assume you realize that in every instance a recession occurs and governments fail to spend to support aggregate demand, job losses increase and the resulting costs of maintaining a social safety net like unemployment and food stamps rise, which causes debt to rise while the economy drops. So either way we're getting a lot of debt, Obama's or yours. Just like to know using your method who the losers are going to be.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 17, 2009 2:14 PM
President Reagan cut taxes when he inherited the mess Jimmy Carter left him, and we experienced the longest sustained economic growth in the history of America.
We need a national sales tax and the elimination of the current IRS tax codes, which impede growth of the small businesses, which are the engine of our economy.
Look folks this is not rocket friggen science. Everything that is being tried now, has been tried before. Roosevelt started spending like a mad man. Without this massive spending historians have agreed the Great Depression would have ended in a year, but because Roosevelt went out and spent massively he deepened the Great Depression and caused it to last four plus years.
Here's my forecast. Obama spends like a maniac. Civil unrest starts in the U.S. and spreads throughout the World. The U.S dollar collapses as the European Union refuses to join Obama in a wild spending spree. The Euro escalates in value tremendously, as Europeans push the U.S. Governement (Obama) to move to more conservative financial moves (i.e. cut taxes and STOP spending!)to keep the global financial structure from completely collapsing. Obama loses Democratic majority in the House and Senate in 2010.
Mexicans financial refugees flood over the U.S. border in numbers never seen before, collapsing the real estate values in New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California. California declares bankruptcy for the second time in four years.
Obama is out of office in 2012, and Democrats fail to get significant power for the next 20 years.
Term limits are imposed on career politicians, as the sale of tar and feathers increase throughout the country.
In 2012 an Reagan-like President who is not White-Anglo-Saxon demands 10% of Mexico in exchange for the fact we have absorbed 10% of Mexico's population. The new President takes the 10% right across the top of Mexico and sends in US troops to war with the drug lords on the boarder. A new fence is built from the current fence. And the border is now shorter.
And the evil Governor of Ohio is indited for secretly stealing water from the Great Lakes and selling it to the drought states (Arizona, New Mexico etc.).
Americans wise up and stop buying so many foreign products and cars and our economy begins to grow at Reagan era rates.
Socialists in the Democratic Party all move to Wisconsin and live off of Government cheese programs, where they whine about me not sharing my labor with them to improve their lives, when they won't work for themselves. Wisconsin becomes the land of Whine and Cheese!
Posted by: Jeff McQueen | April 17, 2009 5:47 PM
The longest period of economic expansion the U.S. has experienced was the 37 quarters from March 1991 to Oct 2000.
I.e. McQueens's post began with a standard Reagan-worshipping lie and went downhill from there.
If only McQueen was willing to put money on his hilarious forecast. How about Republicans winning both houses of Congress in 2010? The stakes: the net worth of whoever's worth less.
Posted by: Foggg | April 17, 2009 6:19 PM
Jeff McQueen - it's obvious you drink the Kool-Aid bigtime and unless you make big bucks, have been had.
Reagan cut the total effective rate from 22.4 to 20.7 in '81. But he did that by raising taxes on the lowest quintile of taxpayers by almost 25% while cutting taxes on the highest quintile by about 11%. The other three quintile's effective tax rates stayed flat. He also started a deficit spending plan that increased the federal debt by almost $5 trillion dollars. Rates are found here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5324/04-02-TaxRates.htm Numbers used are in the total row of "Total Effective Tax Rate Table". These are the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office numbers.
Furthermore Reagan aggravated and deepened the recession he inherited by cutting taxes on those most prone to not spend in recession but instead save (the highest quintile), which aggravated GDP declines and deepened the recession while raising taxes 25% on those most inclined to spend in a recessionary economy (the lowest 25% quintile).
Reagan raised taxes back to 21.8% in '88 given his debt/GDP kept increasing as he kept missing his growth projections on GDP rates, and therefore federal revenues. His debt however led to another recession given interest rates went up. Only until Bush 41, Clinton, and '94 GOP Congressional class started matching revenues to spending did we incur the largest economic expansion in our history years after Reagan was out of office. Not under Reagan, your history is wrong.
I'm a fan of Reagan's, I voted for home twice and don't regret that. I recognize that much of his debt spending was required to rebuild our Defense infrastructure. But no President until Bush 43 caused so many recessions and they were fairly deep. His tax policy is generally considered the worst by any modern President. So it's amazing you would provide that as an example. One thing I liked about Reagan was that he learned from this mistakes, like where he raised taxes late in his tenure to redeem the mistakes he made in '81 (to take the pressure off interest rates so private capital investment could re-start). Only when he put Volcker's Monetarist disciplines on money growth in place with tax increases and moderate spending at the end of his tenure did Reagan start to have a positive effect on the economy. But he left all future presidents with a legacy of $5 trillion in debt and a past of stagnant GDP because his tax cuts were not stimulative but instead harmed aggregate demand.
So Jeff McQueen - I don't think you came even close to answering the questions I asked. Instead you made an argument for Obama's plan given Obama cut taxes on the lowest 95% of taxpayers which generate more jobs than Reagan's tax cut scheme while deficit spending just like Reagan did.
Care to try again?
Given what you presented and how close it matches what Obama did, I'd say your problems have nothing to do with tax rates and spending given how close Obama's is to Reagan's with the exception that Obama cut the lowest 95% of earners' taxes while going on a Reagan-like deficit spending spree.
So what really caused you to protest?
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 17, 2009 6:36 PM
Obama cuts taxes for 97% of Americans?
In this country we have roughly 260 Million Americans and 12 Million illegal aliens, of which over 50% pay no taxes whatsoever. So explain to me how 97% of Americans will guy a tax cut. Does he mean 97% of Americans who pay taxes will get a tax cut? If so, why doesn't he say that. He raised taxes on cigarettes, and the majority of smokers are poor. The cigarette taxes alone will wipe out anything he does for the poor.
I'm one of the folks earning over $250K per year . . . well at least I was until recently when I got laid-off as an Exec Sales Director for an auto part supplier. I have created more jobs for more Americans by travelling around the world and closing multi-million dollar deals, which put people to work here. If my competitors had won those contracts most of the work would have gone off shore.
Look folks, I went to the Tea Party because my taxes would define me as an indentured servant in the eyes of my colonial ancestors. If you add up all of the taxes I/We pay (i.e. federal, state, local, sales, license, gas, cable, phone service etc . . . ), I have to work nearly 200 days now before I earn money for myself. So if I work 20 years, I serve the tax man 10 of those years. In indentured servitude, at least your payments ended after 10 years and you got 40 acres and a cow.
And in a Global Economy guess which middle managers get laid-off first the Americans or the Europeans? Well let see . . . laws in Europe prevent employers from laying off people with out six months notice. However, here you can be laid-off the same day, and only get your vacation pay. In a struggling global environment where do you think the majority of layoff will occur? . . . Where it is easiest and cheapest, which is why we get paid more here (the risks are higher so the rewards are higher).
I lived in Hong Kong and paid a hell of a lot less taxes than here.
Let me ask you . . . do you have a company sponsored pension, confidence your 401K will cover your retirement, confidence the governement can run the medical industry any better tahn any other industry it has run (i.e. Post Office? Welfare?) If government is your answer to every problem you will never enjoy the wealth I have enjoyed. Self-reliance is the only avenue to happiness and wealth.
As a teenager you probably rebelled against your parents' constant interference, so what make you think government interference will be more enjoyable?
If people have a "me too" education, why to they expect above average results? Where is the logic in that.
I speak five languages, and have exceptional sales skills. That's why I get all the calls from the recruiters.
In the developing global economy, specialization will be rewarded not "me too" educations.
Posted by: Jeff McQueen | April 17, 2009 7:06 PM
That 50% number seems really high. Anyway, is there actual footage of Obama saying, "I will cut taxes for 97% of Americans?" Whenever I hear him speak about taxes, he always phrases it, "95% of Americans will not see a single dime increase in their taxes." It sounds like people are just paraphrasing him and slightly changing his meaning.
Posted by: Brandon | April 17, 2009 7:36 PM
Jeff McQueen stated:
Here are the facts.
GDP growth under Reagan was spectacular, 31%. But Clinton did 23% better with growth rates at 38%. Granted, Reagan got dealt a shitty hand like Obama inherited, but Reagan also hurt himself by raising taxes on those most prone to spend in a recession while cutting taxes on the top quintile in a recession. Source: - spreadsheet on GDP growth here: http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
In addition, the DJIA went up 125% under Reagan. But Clinton did 25% better coming in at 156%. My source is the Yahoo financial page.
Jeff - I'm a self-employed business owner as well. I would argue, and can easily prove, that it's not as important whether our tax rate goes up 11% (the actual effective rate would be about 10%) as it is whether the biggest spender in the private economy along with being the referee (that'd be the Federal Government) has policies that promote long-term growth and knows how to intervene in deflationary times like Obama inherited. I had no problem with my rate at 39.6% under Clinton because business and the stock market was booming (in fact I paid at the AMT tax rate of 28%). The difference in taxes is trivial relative to the growth in both after-tax income and capital investments.
Given that you used Reagan as a model in spite of Clinton's better performance, people get suspicious regarding your real motivations and those not being his economic plans. Especially given that Obama's recovery plan is eerily similiar to Reagan's with the exception he cut the lowest 95% of earners rather than raising the highest earners' rates.
By the way, as another top earner, the government started owing me just over a $1m back in '99 that I paid in excess, not my mistake but as a matter of law due to some arcane laws in how the AMT tax formulation forces one to report income on stock option exercises on their AMT returns. Under the Bush regime I was forced to carry that over year by year given they'd only allow you to reduce your overall liability to zero until they paid you off, they wouldn't pay you what they owed. This year the stimulus bill changed the law and the government will now credit you 50% of what they owe you until it's exhausted. So I got a very healthy check last week, albeit one without any interest earned.
So what I've experienced in Obama is sound economics and yes, our rates will go up 10% after the end of the recession if he gets his way. However, if we really care about wealth creation, we need to transform the GOP from a party of social conservative retards back to a party of smart business men that work towards economic growth (I voted for Bush in '00, Kerry in 04, and left the party the night of the loony/liar/idiot Palin nomination was approved on the floor of the Convention).
The GOP could have had a chance to transform us to a national sales tax like you and I both support, but in fact President Bush and the GOP leaderhip was the most effective supporters of progressive income tax schemes in the 2000s, easily obvious in the 2005 Bush commissioned tax report, where Bush ordered them not consider a national sales tax. That's because they were not pro-business/pro-growth, they were instead pro-business interests with their interests being those whose growth adds deflationary pressures to the entire market (energy and food).
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 17, 2009 7:52 PM
Michael Heath: Bravo sir!
I agree with those others above - you should have a blog. You write clearly and well, and with obvious passion. While I do not agree with you politically in many regards (I sense I am much more liberal), I'm certain (and this particular set of commentary demonstrates) that we share a common regard for fairness and accuracy.
Once again, I applaud you. I truly enjoy and learn from your comments.
Posted by: TonyC | April 17, 2009 10:38 PM
Mr McQueen posted
[my emphasis added]Oh really? Historians like who? Seriously, I'd be interested to read their analysis. - DJ
BTW Ben Bernanke is (apparently) quite an expert on the Great Depression, at least on the financial cause and thier effects, in addition to being a "happy free-market warrior". If he (eventually & reluctantly) came around to the idea of capital injection ...
Posted by: DingoJack | April 18, 2009 12:05 AM
Mr. McQueen stated:
Do you have sources?
I would argue what's more important is what do economists believe?
Besides, I'm not sure why anyone would listen to what a historian would argue regarding remedies for the Depression. In fact I would argue that its irresponsible for a historian who is not an economist to make such an argument and is therefore not to be trusted given economics requires functional excellence outside the abilities of historians, unless that historian is also at least a post-grad macro-economist citing work from relevant post-docs.
To pile on to DJ's point about Bernanke; Christina Romer, Obama's Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers, got her PhD studying the Great Depression and the post-WWII economy. Her research argues that the Depression lasted so long because taxes were raised as quickly as spending increases. This again argues why its so imporant not to raise taxes on people who will spend in a recession like Reagan mistakenly did by raising taxes on the lowest quintile by 25%. It's probably also why Obama scheduled his 4.6% tax hike on the top 5% only after the recession ends (where we should remember those in this category of this income bracket also use the AMT Tax form as a method of insuring tax breaks don't go below their paying an effective 28% rate, and the AMT rate of 28% is not slated for increase).
During the stimulus debates, Romer was the one with the spreadsheet calculating job growth in both numbers and timing given what was included in the stimulus package. We are counting on her predictions occurring; however a number of respected economists believe the stimulus was insufficient and expect a coming back to the well in the Autumn.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 18, 2009 12:45 AM
hey if you need a plumber job done go to plumber-quotes.com.au
Posted by: plumber | June 4, 2010 8:24 PM