Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:57 PM ET, 01/28/2011

Biden renews vow to repeal tax cuts for rich

By Greg Sargent

Joe Biden, in a new interview, vows that the Obama administration will make good on its promise to cut the budget, but crucially, he pairs it with a renewed push to end tax cuts for the rich:

Vice President Joe Biden is promising "significant cuts" to the federal budget and a renewed push to end tax cuts for the rich, all while encouraging unemployed Americans to "hang in there" as they struggle to get by and find jobs.

"The president laid out significant cuts to deal with the long-term debt," Biden said in an interview with Yahoo News released Friday. "We are going to once again attempt to repeal the unnecessary $700 billion tax cut for people who make the top 2 percent."

It's good enough on its own to hear Biden renewing this promise. But the real key here is that he's keeping the issue alive in the context of the current discussion about budget cuts and the deficit. As Jed Lewison noted the other day, the conversation about fiscal discipline too often gets framed solely around the narrow question of whether to cut or not to cut, when there are other deficit-reduction options available.

Since that narrow framing risks playing in the GOP's favor, It would make sense for Dems to inject calls to get rid of the high-end tax cuts into the discussion at every opportunity, in order to remind people that cutting isn't the only way to reduce the deficit. Though the high-end tax cuts won't be dealt with for some time, there's no sense in letting the issue slide out of the public consciousness once the debate over spending and budget cutts heats up in earnest. Better for Dems to keep it alive, as Biden does here.

By Greg Sargent  | January 28, 2011; 1:57 PM ET
Categories:  taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Charles Krauthammer gets it
Next: White House hardens line on Egypt

Comments

MORE CLASS WARFARE STUFF FROM OBAMA


Who cares, Obama is going to be out of office in LESS THAN TWO YEARS !!


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 28, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama's time left in office

722 Days, 21 Hours, 56 Minutes,


We are taking our COUNTRY BACK !!!


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 28, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"The real key here is that he's keeping the issue alive in the context of the current discussion about budget cuts and the deficit."

Whoop-de-doo:

"Letting the tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000 would close just 5 percent of the budget deficit over the next decade. The $736 billion price tag is a fraction of the cost $21 trillion cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid over the decade."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258115/cbo-baseline-shows-staggering-debt-brian-riedl

Posted by: sbj3 | January 28, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Yay!

Obama's Rosinante gets him in trouble again. The rich happen to be the government so it will never happen, but it is fun to talk about. Anyone know if there is a windmill over that next hill?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

700 Billion

Obama kept on saying that - but then he came out with a package that cost TWICE AS MUCH to the deficit.


(please remember the Social Security portion is still going to add to the overall debt, even though it will not show on the Federal deficit, because SS is a separate accounting ledger)

TWICE AS MUCH


That is what Obama is all about.


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 28, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

NOW

It's 722 Days, 21 Hours, 48 Minutes


So just wait,


WE ARE GETTING OUR COUNTRY BACK !!!


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 28, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

sbj3 quotes
"Letting the tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000 would close just 5 percent of the budget deficit over the next decade. The $736 billion price tag is a fraction of the cost $21 trillion cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid over the decade."


The $736 B is a fraction of the total cost of SS, but is remakably close to the projected shortfall of SS over that time. Strange how the excerpt glosses over that point.

sbj - is it relevant to compare the size of a tax cut repeal to the total cost of SS? Why even bother, other than trying to pick a suitably large enough number that makes $736 Billion look small?

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 28, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The Obama administration would be better served to just move forward with broad based tax reform on the basis of eliminating deductions/closing loopholes and both reducing the number of brackets and lowering the rates themselves rather than re-fighting this battle.

If the resulting system raises some more revenue than the old one, that's fine provided it's less of a drag on the economy and less of a time consuming miserable experience for the taxpayer.

Joe Biden's comments sound like he's "stuck in the old politics of the past" as President Obama likes to say.

Posted by: jnc4p | January 28, 2011 2:13 PM | Report abuse

OT There goes the gentleman's agreement:

"A few hours after entering into a gentlemen’s agreement to allow Republicans to offer more amendments, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)... made clear [the] earlier agreement to allow more votes on Republican amendments would not extend to legislation repealing healthcare reform."

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/140847-reid-gentlemens-agreement-does-not-cover-healthcare-reform-repeal-

Posted by: sbj3 | January 28, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

There goes the gentleman's agreement:


_________________

Did anyone say Harry Reid is a gentleman?

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 28, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

jnc4p refighting a losing battle rallies the base.

It is a Don Quixote thing, the lovable loser, liberals eat that shіt for breakfast.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"We are going to once again attempt to repeal the unnecessary $700 billion tax cut for people who make the top 2 percent."

There is no need to "attempt to repeal" anything. Just don't cut another deal with the Republicans and the tax cuts expire automatically. That was either unfortunate phrasing or it was disingenuous.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 28, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Egypt

Is Obama willing to allow a Hamas-like government to take over Egypt???


Will Obama invade Egypt???


What is going to happen???


People, the Egpytian-Israeli peace treaty is out the window if an Islamic government takes power.


This is an extremely serious situation


Does OBAMA HAVE THE BALLS TO PROTECT US INTERESTS ???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 28, 2011 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Good Day, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 28, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

In the real world, Egypt is a country of 84 million. It is coming apart and no one knows what will happen next. America's position: tourists should reconsider their travel plans. Why doesn't America care? You know.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"Biden renews vow..." Hmmm, since he made it a vow, wonder if Biden thinks he can wait until, oh say, the republicans don't control any part of congress, or perhaps until the "Biden Administration" takes over the reins of government? Bwahahahahaha.

sbj, do you really think that "gentleman's agreement" in politics has any real substance?

Posted by: actuator | January 28, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

WOW

It Biden saying the ENTIRE TAX package from December is going to get repealed too?


Meaning the 2% break in Social Security taxes??


That is why the SS went into deficit this week - whatever that rash of stories was about.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 28, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Shrink

Egypt matters a great deal. This could be the beginning of Islamic revolutions in several countries.

Israel is going to have a rough going with a hostile Egypt on its border.


UMMM, anyway....


A Hamas-like government could be in charge quickly

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 28, 2011 2:33 PM | Report abuse

This is classic, perfect!

"Shares of BankUnited Inc. are jumping on their first day of trading after the once-failed bank raised its offering price and increased the number of shares sold.

In afternoon trading, the Miami Lakes, Fla., savings and loan's shares gained $1.33, or 4.9 percent, to $28.33 on heavy volume.

The initial public offering was priced at $27, above its expected range. It sold over 29 million shares, about 3 million more than anticipated. Still, the price was considered low, and strong institutional interest helped send the stock up.

|hi:One appeal for investors is that when BankUnited bought a failed bank with the same name from the FDIC in May 2009, most of the risk associated with that institution's souring loan portfolio was assumed by the FDIC.| AP

Private profit, public losses, your crony capitalism at work.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 2:34 PM | Report abuse

@actuator: "Do you really think that "gentleman's agreement" in politics has any real substance?"

No, but it would be nice.

It tells me that - for some reason - Reid doesn't even want to allow a vote on repealing ACA.

@bsimon: If Biden and Greg want to talk about the tax cuts in terms of the overall debt and deficit then it makes perfect sense to point out that the tax cuts amount to only a fraction of the problem and acknowledge that the real problem lies with Medicare and Medicaid.

Posted by: sbj3 | January 28, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"A few hours after entering into a gentlemen’s agreement to allow Republicans to offer more amendments, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)... made clear [the] earlier agreement to allow more votes on Republican amendments would not extend to legislation repealing healthcare reform."


That sounds a lot like the House Repubs rules that they'll allow amendments, except to the bill that would repeal health care reform; and they'll only allow deficit neutral legislation ... except the repeal of health care reform.

For all of them, playing politics is apparently more important than solving problems.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 28, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"For all of them, playing politics is apparently more important than solving problems."

Say what you will about how crazy Rand Paul or Pual Ryan are but they at least have some juevos grandes...

Posted by: sbj3 | January 28, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

What they need to be doing is dropping this stupid BS about one rate for everyone making over $250K or whatever. Making $250K is nothing like making $1 million. So have a slightly raised rate at $250K and raise the rate another 1 or 2% at $1 million, again at $5 million, and so on. Let's get to a rate of 60% when you get into the hundreds of millions. It's not like personal income in that range reflects ACTUAL productivity, and it's not like the guy who makes $150 million will really notice if the last $50 million is taxed at 60%, since he's got more than he can spend to begin with. If he was paying the people who generated that amount of wealth for him properly, he wouldn't be making that much, and if he's making that much, he's damn well using a lot more in federal resources than you or I (roads, courts, etc.)

Now, let the throaty skreeeeeeees of "socialism" begin.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Biden is a just another garden variety liberal. To him life as we know it cannot continue unless the government continues to extract significant amounts of money from its citizens.

he appears to be incapable of confronting the spending issue. that's hardly surprising, most liberals are.

For America's left, government spending is a lot like Roe V Wade. The goal now is to do whatever it takes to sustain it.

the specter of Greece as Obama crawls into bed with the SEIU is simply not something Biden can imagine. But again, that's hardly surprising. since in the liberal mind all money earned by the citizens is rightly the property of the government taking all they want to satisfy their cronies is just the way the world works.

Recently Frances Fox Piven called for violent demonstrations. If the government continues to tax and spend and misgovern, she's likely to see her dream fulfilled. It's just that the demonstrations won't be designed to bring about the socialist revolution. They will be an attempt to stop it.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 28, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

...now you poor people (unemployed/discouraged) "just hang in there..." "Yes, pretty soon the snow will melt and you can go back to eating grass, new leaf shoots on trees, some good maple bark, and with all the melted snow there will be no shortage of water." "Now, (burp!), I've got to get back to my lavish feast!" Isn't this the same guy that about 20 years ago was "uncovered" for plagiarism on his college thesis?

Posted by: bigisle1 | January 28, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

No Jenn, go with the Fair Tax. Then those who consume the most, the rich, will pay the most and those who consume the least, the poor, will pay the least.

Posted by: actuator | January 28, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Actually, under the Fair Tax the poor pay nothing until their income exceeds poverty level for their family size.

Posted by: actuator | January 28, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

skip - link to Francis Fox Piven (Ward Churchill 2.0) "recently" calling for violent demonstrations.

Beyond that, blah blah blah. There's not a magic pony that shits out roads, courts, and law enforcement, disaster relief, etc etc etc etc. These things cost money. If you don't want to pay for them, fine, go somewhere where the taxes are low or nonexistent and they don't have them. Say, Somalia. Otherwise, hang it up. Whenever you start that kvetching, what you're really whining about is that some other people are also benefitting from the taxes you pay. Too bad; that's the price for living in a civilized society, and if you find it so distasteful that other people may also benefit from taxes on your hard-earned money, go set up your own Libertarian state of Skipsylvania, build your own roads, do your own policing, and do it all yourself, because you're not going to get it for free there, either.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

O/T:

From a blogger for The Nation:

2:50 pm: A full-scale nationwide insurrection is underway in Egypt, late Friday, with as many as 80,000 people in the streets of Port Said, at the end of the Suez Canal. According to one report, the headquarters of the ruling National Democratic Party in Cairo is on fire. The city of Suez has fallen to protestors, the Guardian reports. And Alexandria, Egypt’s main port and the ancient center of commerce and learning, is under siege.

Egypt's army has been called out, but there are lots of questions about whether the army will hold together. As I reported yesterday (see below), protesters were told to being flowers to give to the army and police.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158105/fire-cairo-army-moves

Posted by: wbgonne | January 28, 2011 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"If he was paying the people who generated that amount of wealth for him properly, he wouldn't be making that much, and if he's making that much, he's damn well using a lot more in federal resources than you or I (roads, courts, etc.)"

I guess because JennOfArf declares it to be so? I won't address these questions to her, since dialogue with her is pointless, but . . .

How would one establish that everyone with a high income had his "wealth" "generated" by other people? What people? How would someone establish which portion was "generated" by others?

What federal resources is he using that he isn't paying for through taxes and fees? Proof?

Obviously, there's no proof or support for any of these half-baked assertions. It's just more greedy government, class warfare ideology on parade.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 28, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse

JennOA, I went skiing last week with a bunch of people richer than I. When talking about the challenges of working with crazy people, I was asked by one guy, who is retired at a young age, having been a full partner at the old Goldman, before it went public, anyway he asked how much I make to deal with all that; another friend laughed and said I make that much for getting up in the morning and indeed he does, he makes well over 365 times the money I make in a year which is close enough to that much discussed $250k mark, he is a Wall Street banker, of course. These guys go to clubs in NYC where there is a $3000. minimum, that tends to keep out the riff raff, you know, like doctors. The Republican voters think making these guys richer is good for the little guy and so too good for the country, for freedom and justice.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"In the real world, Egypt is a country of 84 million. It is coming apart and no one knows what will happen next. America's position: tourists should reconsider their travel plans. Why doesn't America care? You know."

I don't know why you think American's don't care, and would like to hear (Read!) your opinion. I see no fundamental difference in American interest in foreign events versus the historic norm.  Do you see a difference?  

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 28, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Egypt is the most populous Arab state and it is the one with the deepest history of relations with the West. The collapse of the American backed (propped up) government is of enormous moment. What are we doing in the hills of AfPak, chasing our demons that's what.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Well little miss Calumny, it seems that unless you're lying about Sarah Palin you really don't have much to say, now do ya?

Try going to the Nation and reading it for yourself sweetie. She said it, the Nation published it, I'm sharing it.

And Ms Fox Piven is, IMHO, one of the reasons that liberal men are so darned angry. Let's compare her side by side with, oh say, Michelle Bachman. Simply put: we got the pretty ladies here on the right!

and of course you don't have a rational, thoughtful response to my point either. I never said NO government honey pie. I want LIMITED government. What part of that don't you get?

sure I want roads. But I don't want a government telling what lightbulbs I may purchase, what to eat, what to drive, what to say, what to think. You do.

I'm for freedom, you're for tyranny. Oh and anger and lying too.

I'm not going to let your bad behavior go. I don't think that America will be well served by forgetting the nastiness of the left in the aftermath of Tucson. The lesson in that for us is just too profoundly insightful. Angry spiteful people with no new ideas who support a failed approach to economics and governance lashed out at people with the nerve to disagree with their foolish vision of the future. You were among the worst. If that's all you've got, you are ready for the dust bin of history.

You are just what America needs least: yet another liberal yenta.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 28, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Gibbs is talking now...

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne ""We are going to once again attempt to repeal the unnecessary $700 billion tax cut for people who make the top 2 percent."

There is no need to "attempt to repeal" anything. Just don't cut another deal with the Republicans and the tax cuts expire automatically. That was either unfortunate phrasing or it was disingenuous."

It was accurate in the sense that the Obama administration wants to decouple the tax cuts for those making under $250,000 for married couples filing jointly from those making more than that. In order to do so, they need legislation, otherwise all the Bush tax cuts expire in two years just like they would have at the end of 2010.

My money is on Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in 2012 when it comes to extending all the tax cuts again, assuming there's no fundamental tax reform in the meantime. If Obama and the Democrats were serious about wanting to do this, they should have done it immediately in 2009 as part of the original stimulus. They could have made an argument about locking in long term deficit reduction at the same time as they were doing a short term stimulus and also providing "certainty" about what the tax rates would be two years later.

But they didn't, and instead tried to avoid taking a vote before the midterms, punted the issue to the lame duck, and the rest is history.

Posted by: jnc4p | January 28, 2011 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"The Republican voters think making these guys richer is good for the little guy and so too good for the country, for freedom and justice."

Nonsense. Republican (conservative) voters generally think that freedom should be valued and protected, and don't spend their lives resenting your friends who get rich in a (relatively) free market economy. The objective isn't your buddies' getting wealthy but a free economy, of which their wealth ostensibly is a product.

Democratic voters just accept as a given that it's unjust for anyone to have a lot of money (unless it happens to be one of their own, in which case, more power to them), regardless of how they got it. If you have some case that your friends got rich illegally or unjustly, you could by all means make that case.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 28, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

All, looks like the White House is hardening its line on Egypt:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/white_house_speaks_out_on_egyp.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 28, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

qb, they are my friends and they know darn well it isn't just, I have known them since they were teenagers. They think they are the luckiest people on earth and they understand the rules, if they were not doing it, someone else would. And if someone handed me a billion dollars, I would take it. I would know that was unjust, unfair and that I had not earned it. But I would take it. These guys are not earning this money in any conventional sense, in reality, we throw it at them.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"sure I want roads. But I don't want a government telling what lightbulbs I may purchase, what to eat, what to drive, what to say, what to think. You do."

Oh, good lord. So information about diet and health is "telling you what to eat"?

No. No, it isn't. It's telling you the pros and cons of your choices. But to you conservatives, information is a bad thing - let the market decide! Even if the market is perverted because people don't know that the tasty snack they enjoy is full of poison. No one is telling you what to eat, what to drive, or what lightbulbs you can buy, Rosebud. Your precious rights to do any dumb thing you want to do aren't being infringed upon. No one is going to make you read the nutritional information on the packages. You're free to buy - and eat - all the Ho-ho's and Twinkies your chubby little fingers can pick up. But the rest of us consider it an overall good to have some information about what's in our food, the energy efficiency of applicances, vehicles, and light bulbs, and other things that help us make good decisions about how to spend OUR hard-earned money. It's unfortunate that so many conservatives equate ignorance with freedom. That pesky old FDA probably costs each of us $.25 per year; who WOULDN'T trade in saving a quarter for zero regulation of what goes into food and drugs?

And again, link for Piven "recently" calling for violent protests, or it didn't happen.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Egypt open thread:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/white_house_speaks_out_on_egyp.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 28, 2011 3:45 PM | Report abuse

No one gets to be a billionaire without a lot of the rough edges being sanded off the "free market" - government favors, tax breaks, etc etc - to ease his way. The deck is stacked in their favor, either because government chooses to look the other way from a monopoly (microsoft) or ignores widespread corruption (wall street).

There's no such thing as a "free market" in this country. The rules are rigged in favor of the rich and getting-richer, to the detriment of the small business. Just like farm subsidies are rigged in favor of Cargill, ADM & others against the family farmer. If there was anything approaching a "level playing field" we wouldn't have nearly the market consolidation and dominance that a handful of companies exert over the marketplace.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

What nonsense my yenta.

the government issues, on average 68,000 new federal register pages each and every year. Every aspect of our lives is being regulated and people like you want more, more, more.

68,000 new federal register pages. That means that the CFR is growing metastatically. meanwhile existing regulatory Raj fails us repeatedly.

Want a perfect example? Dodd Frank calls for massive new regualtion. but it doesn't specify them. Instead it mandates that unelected agencies write them. Sarbanes Oxley had about 16 such requirements. Dodd Frank has hundreds. Thats hundreds of new regs, that have the weight of law, that are yet to be written and that MUST BE OBEYED.

Either you don't care about your freedom or you can't understand the threat. Which is it?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 28, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"And again, link for Piven "recently" calling for violent protests, or it didn't happen."

How's this:

"An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees."


http://www.thenation.com/article/157292/mobilizing-jobless


Angry and violent enough for ya?

Nothing like letting this blog's biggest blowhard make a fool of herself, again.

Btw, to all the lefties, Piven and Cloward were all the rage when I was in college. Still have my copy of Poor People's Movements somewhere. None of this is news to anyone who's educated and informed.

How many of you think it wasn't the same intellectual diet BO had in college? While he as attending socialist conferences in NYC?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 28, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Better for Dems to keep it alive, as Biden does here.

~~~

Thank You VP Biden.

Keep it Alive, Say it Louder, and Keep it Going.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | January 28, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Arfie obviously doesn't know what a monopoly is. Wow, what a torrent of meaningless blather.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 28, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

You guys get so hung up on how many pages are in this and that. It's almost as if you hate to read or something.

Tightly-written regs require a lot of words. Sorry, but that's how it is; since the business of business in this country is figuring out how to get around following the rules, you're always going to have to lard up everything to cover as many bases as you can think of. Maybe if people weren't greedy and sneaky it wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, people are both.

So, these 68,000 pages - do each and every one of them apply to you? I mean, I think I can refrain from reading the 50 pages of regs relating to the disposal of medical waste, since it's not something I deal with, probably I don't need to know the ins and outs of what licensed chemicals can be applied to a golf course bordering a creek, and so on and so forth.

But OMIGOD SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND PAGES! Relax, sunshine, no one's expecting you - or anyone else - to have to read and memorize every single one of them. Just the ones that, you know, keep you from poisoning other people when you do your job & etc. Really, not a huge burden.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Jesus, what a maroon.

"An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece..."

Excuse me, but how does making an observation translate into "Recently Frances Fox Piven called for violent demonstrations"? Where does Piven say, "Citoyens, to the barricades with pitchforks and torches!"? Uh, she doesn't. She's saying that any effective movement of the unemployed in this country, should one occur, would look a lot like what happened in Greece. Her point is, short of that type of mass demonstration, Washington will continue to coast along serving their clientele - big business and the wealthy. You disagree with that assessment? Fine - make your case for that instead of pretending that Piven is some revolutionary fomenting violent rebellion.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Here's the left's blind spot:
================
There's no such thing as a "free market" in this country. The rules are rigged in favor of the rich and getting-richer, to the detriment of the small business. Just like farm subsidies are rigged in favor of Cargill, ADM & others against the family farmer. If there was anything approaching a "level playing field" we wouldn't have nearly the market consolidation and dominance that a handful of companies exert over the marketplace.

=============

In your list of corporate bad actors, why don't you mention GE? Does the name Jeffry Immelt ring a bell?

This is from Kevin Williamson:
"GE, you will not be surprised to know, spent $32 million on lobbying in the last year and is a big political donor. Like its colleagues in most Big Business sectors, it heavily favors Democrats: It was a large contributor to Barack Obama’s senatorial and presidential campaigns, and the single largest recipient of GE money in 2009–10 was, you will not be surprised to learn, one Barack Obama."

Oh, and remember when I was "Kvetching" about the light bulbs? Guess who makes the new bulbs? Now Guess who lobbied hardest for the outlawing the old ones? And guess what, the last factory in America that made those old bulbs just closed. Hundreds out of work in the Toledo Area. Where are the bulbs that GE sells made honey?

You wanna rail against crony capitalism my little yenta? Then start by changing your mind about Mr Obama.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 28, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

What is it that makes it ipso facto unjust for a "banker" to make that much? It isn't the case that "we" just throw it at them. Typically companies are paying them for something they do. Those companies' execs might be stupid. But they pretty much all pay for the service and underwritings. If they didn't think the fees were worthwhile, why would they pay them?

Similarly, why would it be unjust for you to accept money someone gave to you? Undeserved I can understand. Unjust? Why?

I think many folks just have a set of easy, unexamined assumptions about these issues.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 28, 2011 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"Undeserved I can understand. Unjust?"

I am drawing a blank on the difference in this context. All that money was made by someone or to put it differently, if I get it, someone else lost it. This isn't like winning the lottery, where everyone buys a ticket and doesn't expect to win. This is about money that people did not want to have in play and yet it has to be, well, if they don't put it in the mattress.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Arfie arfed:

"Excuse me, but how does making an observation translate into "Recently Frances Fox Piven called for violent demonstrations"?"

Well, here is the paragraph immediately following the "observation" about riots that spread across Europe:


"A loose and spontaneous movement of this sort could emerge. It is made more likely because unemployment rates are especially high among younger workers. Protests by the unemployed led by young workers and by students, who face a future of joblessness, just might become large enough and disruptive enough to have an impact in Washington. There is no science that predicts eruption of protest movements. Who expected the angry street mobs in Athens or the protests by British students? Who indeed predicted the strike movement that began in the United States in 1934, or the civil rights demonstrations that spread across the South in the early 1960s? We should hope for another American social movement from the bottom—and then join it."

But honestly, this is just the level of determined stupidity one expects from Ms. Yappy. Do you think that FFP is just an academic making observations? Did you have any familiarity with her before her name recently came to media attention?

If you did, if you had any clue what you were talking about, you would know how stupid your comments are. She's an activist "academic" who's spent her entire, long career strategizing and advocating for leftist "disruptive" (ie, violent and "confrontational") "social movement."

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 28, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

From US News & World Report:
"By 2012, the chances are good that consumers will have many more options to replace incandescent bulbs. Manufacturers already are deploying advanced incandescent bulbs that are efficient enough to stay on the market after 2012, although they are not yet as efficient as CFLs."

So, GE (who also still makes incandescent bulbs, including the more efficient variety mentioned above), in cahoots with Obama, is solely responsible for putting the Toledo light bulb factory out of business? I guess in the same way that Japanese and Korean manufacturers are responsible for putting US TV manufacturers - who declined to put anything into development of HDTV - out of the running.

Free market, right?

Hey, we used to use asbestos for insulating material, until we found out that maybe that wasn't such a good idea, and found alternatives, which was totally unfair to the asbestos companies. I mean, they were regulated out of business! Totally unfair, even though it represented an overall public good - kind of like a new standard that saves enough energy to power all the homes in Texas for a year while saving us all money and allowing us to import less foreign fossil fuel that we have to keep fighting expensive wars to retain access to. Why would anyone want to do anything stupid like saving money? Let the market decide! We can spend the next 50 years until it runs out fighting in the Middle East, or until we go broke, whichever comes first. It's totally worth it to have the FREEDOM to use an old-school incandescent bulb rather than an energy efficient one!

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I've been frequenting this blog for a while now. I cannot recall a single instance when a liberal here complained about the vast sums of money that professional athletes or actors make. Not once.

Bankers are just being given then money, according to shrink2. but A rod, he earns it right? so do Johnny Depp (sp?) and LeBronn James.

What it really amounts to, IMHO, is either pure envy or a complete swallowing of the marxist notion that the rich got that way by oppressing the poor.

I was given a pair of tickets to an NBA game. Midway up the stands, not nose bleed, but not courtside either. Price printed on the ticket? $145. Now, that dear friends is oppression at its finest right?

At least hockey players seem to earn their bucks.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 28, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

skip,

No, of course they don't. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. They are totally cool with James Cameron and Steven Speilberg and Barbara Streisand and Oprah and Lebron James having megabucks.

Hey, most are also cool with Herb Kohl, John Corzine, and John Kerry, too. Because they are all liberals who by definition are holy because of their good intentions.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 28, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Do you think that FFP is just an academic making observations? Did you have any familiarity with her before her name recently came to media attention?"

No, I didn't. Which means, it's not as if she's a well-known leftist icon or leader. Very few people had any awareness of her until Beck and his minions (that would be, you) decided that she was the New and Improved History's Greatest Monster.

Like I said, Ward Churchill 2.0.

And again, there's nothing in this other passage you've quoted where she's calling anyone to arms. She says she would agree with mass protests and join them but she's not issuing any "Workers of the World - UNITE!" calls for revolution.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

skip, yes, the money "stars" make is unearned and unjust and should therefore be heavily taxed. There, now you have a single instance.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

jnc4p:

I agree re: taxes. I don't think Biden's was a slip of the tongue. They are positioning themselves for "failure" to prevent the tax cuts. So what if the Bush tax cuts expire across the board? Taxes are historically low and we are deep in debt. That's what I'd say. But instead Obama is giving the GOP the leverage to beat him. This has re-capitulation written all over it.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 28, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

shrink - you beat me to it.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

skip, yes, the money "stars" make is unearned and unjust and should therefore be heavily taxed. There, now you have a single instance.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

And another.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 28, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"the marxist notion that the rich got that way by oppressing the poor"

You made me laugh. Thanks. I know rich people, really rich people and they oppress no one. They don't wear top hats, they are not morbidly obese, sneering cigar chompers...they are all generous. Sure they are confused, who isn't, but they are not caricatures. But we did smoke wonderful Cuban cigars, not that that matters.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 28, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

OK, Jenn, now prove that the ordinary incandescent bulb, that your liberal government just outlawed, is the same threat to health as asbestos.

You're clinging to some mighty thin reeds and you are missing the point entirely.

I understand that. Your basic assumptions about Obama, the Democrats and the way America works is being assaulted with the facts.

Once again, you complained about crony capitalism and I simply pointed out that it is Obama who is the master of this. The only difference is with Obama it is crony socialism. I wonder how much McDonalds gave his campaign war chest to get that waiver from obamacare.


so don't get all ferdrayt. The gonifs in DC are who they are. Face it, you are backing the tyrants and cronies.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 28, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn You wrote:
"No, I didn't. Which means, it's not as if she's a well-known leftist icon or leader. Very few people had any awareness of her until Beck and his minions (that would be, you) decided that she was the New and Improved History's Greatest Monster."

Basically what you are saying here is that you are the benchmark standard for American awareness. if you've never heard of her, why she must be a nobody, right?

If you travel to Freetochose.net you can watch a video of Frances Fox Piven being handed her bodunkas by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. I particularly like they way Mr Sowell gets in her face when she arrogantly tells him what black people in America think.

Oh, wait, those guys may be nobodies. Tell me my little yenta, have you ever heard of Friedman and Sowell? Just asking is all.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 28, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

too funny. Until I brought it up, nary a peep. Apparently liberals have shed their sense of shame, but perhaps a bit of guilt lingers.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 28, 2011 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"Which means, it's not as if she's a well-known leftist icon or leader. Very few people had any awareness of her until Beck and his minions (that would be, you) decided that she was the New and Improved History's Greatest Monster."

Hogwash. I've been familiar with her work and her advocacy for almost 25 years, and I'm a right wing extremist. This is the stuff taught for the past few decades in our college and university social science departments. You can rest assured there's a dog-eared copy in O's attic or basement.


"And again, there's nothing in this other passage you've quoted where she's calling anyone to arms. She says she would agree with mass protests and join them but she's not issuing any "Workers of the World - UNITE!" calls for revolution."

To bad you don't have an icon to show you closing your eyes, putting hands over ears and yelling "I can't hear you!" The concluding paragraph that I pasted above says just that. As does her entire body of work.


Posted by: quarterback1 | January 28, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"Basically what you are saying here is that you are the benchmark standard for American awareness. if you've never heard of her, why she must be a nobody, right?"

No. She's about as influential as Ward Churchill. Which is to say, not at all.

I get it. You're butthurt that this snooty elitist academian has opinions that differ from yours, and she dares to exercise her 1st amendment rights to say and write things that you don't like. But she's not Martin Luther King with a groundswell of a movement behind her; she's not even a nascent Al Sharpton, who makes a lot of noise but never really had that much of a following. She's a fairly obscure college professor.

So yeah, probably well north of 95% of Americans had never heard of her before Beck annointed her the new Hitler, including me. Given that I'm a lot more of a news junkie than most, if I hadn't heard of her, hardly anyone had.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and...one more thing.

The law phasing out old-school incandescents? It was passed in 2007.

Hard to see how it arose from "cronyism" between GE and Obama when he wasn't sworn into office until 2009.

So typical.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 28, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"Conservatives" see tyranny under every bed.

Incandescent bulbs?!? Do you ninnies have ANY idea how wasteful those things are?!?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 1:31 AM | Report abuse


I am very thankful for our health insurance, and even more thankful that we found an affordable one through wise health insurance online. It has been 6 years that they have not increased my premiums. Having health insurance gives us a peace of mind

Posted by: byronpatel | January 29, 2011 2:47 AM | Report abuse

RainForestRising wrote:

MORE CLASS WARFARE STUFF FROM OBAMA

====
So tell me. Who is winning the war?

Posted by: Frazil | January 29, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse

These coupons from the website printapons get sent to your browser automatically and you just copy and paste in the shopping cart. Easy to use and its free. Check out.

Posted by: elisajallen | January 30, 2011 2:55 AM | Report abuse

Oh, god, how credulous can you be, making some grand strategy out of this obvious empty promise.

How can it mean what you say it means if no one believes anything he says about tax cuts?

Posted by: mukome | January 30, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Regardless what Joe'Foot-in-mouth'Biden said, in last week’s SOTU address, PresBO stated his goal for reforming our complex and draconian tax code when he said: “Get rid of the loop holes, level the playing field, and … lower the corporate tax rate”

Fortunately, Congressman Rob Woodall (R-GA) has reintroduced his predecessor’s FairTax bill (HR-25) which now has almost FIVE DOZEN cosponsors. HR-25 would do exactly what our president has asked. It would ‘get rid of loopholes’ by eliminating all taxes on business, corporations and individuals. It would ‘level the playing field’ by eliminating the embedded taxes and compliance costs that drive up the price of virtually everything we produce here in the U.S. And it would ‘lower the corporate tax rate’ to ZERO as the FairTax abolishes all taxes on profits, income, capital gains and dividends. The FairTax would make our exports more competitive in the global market as the embedded costs of regulatory compliance, documentation and taxation are removed as a component of production.

Bottom line, HR-25 is a well researched existing tax reform bill currently in congress that would do everything our president has asked our legislators to do. What’s needed now is for congress to get behind this needed legislation and move it through the process, passing it into law. Abolishing taxation on earnings and wealth would attract trillions in capital back to this country. It would repatriate many of the businesses and industry that took their jobs overseas and it would attract foreign corporations to build their next plant right here in the U.S.

The FairTax means Jobs.

We need congress to pass HR-25!

Posted by: Adakin_Valorem | February 2, 2011 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company