Facts are stupid things
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Facts are stupid things
Thanks to the holiday and the altered work schedule, I got to see Sunday's "60 Minutes" and its report on House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Most of it was actually fairly predictable, but it was hard to ignore this moment near the end:
In what was overall a pretty softball interview with Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, there was one pretty telling moment to illustrate the type of toxic political environment we're living in, due primarily to Congressional leaders like Eric Cantor and that is the unwillingness to even admit facts.
When asked about his image of being someone who is unwilling to compromise and the fact that the man he claims is his hero, Ronald Reagan, was willing to compromise on taxes and work with Democrats, Cantor denied that Reagan ever "compromised his principles." When Leslie Stahl pointed out the obvious, that not raising taxes was one of his principles, Cantor's press secretary interrupted the interview, yelling from off camera that what Stahl was saying wasn't true.
The moment had all the qualities of a 9-year-old boy protesting the existence of the Easter Bunny. The reality, of course, is that Reagan, by the most accurate accounting, raised taxes 11 times as president; he did. of course, slash top marginal rate for the wealthy, but in particular his deal to RAISE payroll taxes for Social Security, a non-progressive tax cut if there ever was one, meant that a typical blue collar worker paid more of his income to the government after Reagan left office than before he came in. This is what the modern GOP has come to. It's one thing, arguably, to dispute the widely accepted science on global warming -- at least in that case there's something to debate, however weakly. But now GOP officials -- not the rank and file voters but the House Majority Leader and his press spokesman -- dispute known facts and figures in cold type. For the love of God, tear down this myth.
The B.S. coming out of Bunch was fairly predictable.— ALJ- "Please explain Clinton's role in the fall of the Soviet Union, his hard work in reducing oil prices and how he single handedly engineered the technology revolution...." . . . . Funny thing, all those fortuitous conditions existed BEFORE the recession of 1991 too. Wasn't daddy Bush in the right place at the right time?— montani semper liberi
- @msl- I grant you that Bush the elder was no rocket scientist, but I will ask you to compare and contrast the Clinton vs Bush (elder) Presidencies.
PS-- I'l give you a hint- Who controlled Congress during the bulk of the Clinton years and who controlled it during Bush (elder) years? Remember he that controls the spending controls the deficit. Could that have ahd anything to do with Bush being a one termer?— Wiseman6 - MSL...so do you not think the buildup in military spending was needed, given the nuclear threat from the USSR? Bottom line is that the tax increases did not spur the ecomony, but the tax cuts did. Even JFK cut taxes, didn't he?— Bush3
- "MSL...so do you not think the buildup in military spending was needed, given the nuclear threat from the USSR?" . . . . No. The Soviet Union was already crumbling from within. Contrary to the mythology, it didn't buckle under the pressure of any reciprocal response to Reagan's military build-up (it couldn't afford it anyway). Instead it collapsed under falling world oil prices, a long stagnant internal economy, profound political instability after Brezhnev's death, and of course its misadventure in Afghanistan. Give Reagan credit for friendlier relations with the Arab states (which led to the mid 80's oil glut), and continuing Carter's policy of supporting the mujahadeen resistance in Afghanistan.— montani semper liberi
- The net effect of the Reagan years was higher taxes on the working class and lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The Rs have recently demonstrated that they do not consider payroll tax increases on the working class to *be* tax increases, just getting the lazy, good-for-nothing 99% to pay their share so the 1% (actually, it’s more like the 99.7% vs. the .03%, but that makes for lousy slogans) doesn’t have to support the scum.
Ergo, as far as Cantor is concerned, Reagan didn’t raise taxes. Next I’ll teach you the multiplication tables, Will :)
— Hamlet - "Could that have ahd anything to do with Bush being a one termer?" . . . . The elder Bush had to struggle with the deficit he inherited from Reagan, and could only do so by compromising with Democrats in Congress who wanted higher taxes. This caused a major rift in the GOP (e.g., Pat Buchanan's challenge) and weakened Bush in the 1992 election. There was also the Perot phenomenon which attracted many conservatives alienated by Bush's perceived appeasement with the Dems. Clinton was able to pass his 1993 economic and fiscal agenda without any Republican support in Congress, and once it became apparent that the public wasn't ready for the Republican revolution after 1994, Clinton was able to reach compromise on most major legislation without alienating the Dem base for his re-election in 1996.— montani semper liberi
- Murryman, your funny, you're a OWS opposed to big banks but fail to reconize 401k do not work in the best tax long term. if you pay taxes yearly on your savings you effectively make out better than a 401k. However, you do not understand savings, hence an OWSer.— Fisher
- "if you pay taxes yearly on your savings you effectively make out better than a 401k." In case anyone was looking for the nail that cements Fisher as completely whacked out, there it is. Here this: Fisher decrees that yearly taxed savings you will "make out better" than tax deferred growth. Got that? But I no understand savings, hence OWSer. Thats some genius deduction right there. Who even knows what big banks have to do with the notion of incentivizing individuals to save but okay, me no like big banks, hence OWSer. Me outta here.— Murrayman
- MSL -- you are missing the point: Clinton proved that raising SOME taxes in the middle of a booming economy doesn't appear to restrict it much. We are not in that same situation. The .com industry was NOT the source of the economic boom -- it was the overall tech industry: Almost every single company was forced to replace their aging systems with Y2k compliant systems, making Dell, IBM, HP, Cisco, 3M TONS of $$$$. Companies invested billions/trilions of $$$ in upgrading servers, PC's, networks, phone systems in the 90's. Do you disagree that raising taxes on "the rich" right now would result in pain felt by the middle class?? (i.e are you disagreeing with my conclusions?)— IggleFan68
- "if you pay taxes yearly on your savings you effectively make out better than a 401k." . . . Try explaining that Fisher, and assume you are also investing now the amount of taxes that are deferred by your 401k contributions.— montani semper liberi
- MSL -- the only way that makes sense is if when you start receiving your 401k distributions, that either your income is higher than what it is today, or the tax rates are significantly higher.— IggleFan68
- "Do you disagree that raising taxes on "the rich" right now would result in pain felt by the middle class??" . . . . Depends on how it relieves the middle class from its own regressive tax burdens (especially state and local income, property, sales and use taxes) and contributes to deficit reduction for the economy as a whole.— montani semper liberi
Comment removed.
"Or Cap Gains tax rates remain significantly lower than many income tax brackets." . . . So you'd let Uncle Sam take up to 31% of it now (which you could otherwise be investing separately from your 401k, subject to currently low cap gain tax rates) on vague speculation of what the cap gains tax will be when you retire? Not sensible if you're still ten years from retirement or more.
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
