I'm listening to Bobby Jindal - Governor of Louisiana - give the Republican response to Barack Obama's superb address to Congress and the American people tonight.
I've got to say that Jindal's speech - in delivery as well as content - is one the lamest "opposition" speeches I've ever heard any Republican or Democrat give.
Jindal says Republicans don't want to raise any working person's taxes - he must have missed when Obama just said that no one earning under $250,000 a year would pay a cent more in taxes.
Jindal says don't let anyone tell you our best days are behind us - I just heard Obama talk about America resurging to its greatest heights in the future.
One point that Jindal did get right is that the President and the Democrats think the government can help in this crisis. Jindal and the Republicans want what - the government does nothing to help? Apparently nothing to help with high-speed rail lines...
Back to Jindal's outrightly inane points, he cited Katrina as an example of the "bureaucrats" being bravely overruled. And those government officials would be .... Republicans.
If Jindal has any chance of getting the Republican nomination for President for 2012, it would reside in a majority of Republicans sleeping during his speech tonight.
29 comments:
I haven't stopped smirking since I first saw the speech begin online some time ago. I....can't....stop....smirking! Priceless FAIL material.
Paul, you are missing the point. Jindal was rightly pointing out that we cannot depend on the government to solve our problems. The government is inept at moving quickly and solving problems.
But, on the tax front are you saying that people who make over $250,000 a year are not working Americans? Here is the problem, you tax the job creators to oblivion and they will cease creating jobs. President Obama's plan is flawed and will fail.
DeputyFife,
The economy actually does better when taxes are higher. Logic and history bear this out:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106979
Don't play GOP games, Deputy - you know as well as I that when someone refers to "working Americans," he or she is talking about workers who earn far less than $250,000 a year.
My position, actually, is that only millionaires and over should be taxed - see my I'm a Progressive Libertarian - but Obama's plan is a big step in the right direction.
Hello, Paul! I think you nailed it re: Jindal. And while I think Mr. Fyfe's point is well taken (that just b/c an American makes 250K plus a year doesn't necessarily mean they are not *working* for it) I must respectfully differ with his conclusion re: the impacts of the taxation upon that group. For these (dangerously generalized) reasons:
1) Big businesses don't care, because upper limits of executive compensation are not related to the company's ability to hire and retain employees
2) small businesses will only be impacted if their tax structures are not taking adequate advantage of the (many and long-standing) means of separating owner compensation from business liquidity. In short, if a boss needs more than 250K personal income to keep the BUSINESS running, said boss has not structured their business properly.
Generalizations aplenty in the above, and YMMV.
I was listening to a Thomas Woods interview on FDR, the Stimulus, etc. and I found it extremely compelling. Could you listen to it and tell me your thoughts?
http://libertymaven.com/2009/02/25/tom-woods-talks-meltdown-on-brian-and-the-judge/4498/
I've never understood why anyone defends the interests of the mega rich who most likely make their money through paying low wages and, here in the UK, pay less tax as a proportion of their income than one of their cleaners.
Paul, I would like to hear your definition of 'working Americans' is then. I didn't realize that I had to follow the Liberal Democrat Dictionary now. Penalizing the producers and being upset with them because they have produced will not help the economy or the country. There is no logic to the argument. What I do see on blogs like this one is that people are getting down and dirty into class warfare. Before the Obama - Biden team gets steeped in class warfare it wouldn't hurt for them to learn some basic things, such as the car not being invented in the USA and would someone please tell poor Vice President Joe what a website 'number' is please?
tvindy, sorry but I must have missed that class in economics. Try basing your theories on sound economic theory instead of crackpot websites.
Deputy - Again, you're still playing word games. In the sense that even a millionaire investment broker does work, he or she could be called a working American.
But, as you well know, when we speak of "working Americans," we're usually talking about people who earn far less.
And there is a powerful logic to taxing only the wealthy. If someone earning 20 million a year pays 50% taxes, he or she is still a millionaire. If someone earning 20 thousand a year is taxed 50%, he or she would be devastated financially.
Paul, you are assuming that everyone gets taxed at the same rate. This is obviously not true. Our tax code currently rewards the person making 20K a a year with nice fat refundable credits such as the earned income credit. It is the taxes the so called wealthy are paying that funds this redistribution of wealth. The top 20% of wage earners currently pay about 80% of the taxes collected by the IRS. The top 50% of wage earners currently pay over 96% of taxes. I don't know how much more you can expect people to pay.
By the way, being a libertarian and proposing that people of an arbitrary income level (millionaires) pay taxes is oxymoronic. It is amazing how people like you simply make up the facts as you go along, oblivious to reality.
No Paul, you are playing word games. Your are implying that those who are wealthy don't work for their money. You are the one who does not call them working Americans. You may think there is powerful logic in taxing wealthy people more, but 7% already pays 63% of all taxes. Enough is never enough for you is it? Grow up Paul, try teaching some personal responsibility instead of teaching people to do nothing and wait for the government to help them out.
Jason - and it's amazing to me how rigid you are. I'm a Progressive Libertarian - try reading about that a little. I expect the very wealthy to pay what they can easily afford; and I would like the poor and the middle class to pay nothing.
Deputy - I'm not implying anything - I already explained, point blank, my position. As for your nonsense about personal responsibility - you seem to have a tendency to want to personalize your argument, with ad hominem attacks. You ought to think about the possibility that, if your argument had more merit, could stand on its own logc, you wouldn't need to descend to insult (I also noticed that you attacked Tvindy for recommending a "crackpot" website.)
I'm actually pleased, though, with your comments, because they show the weak reasoning of some opponents of Obama's recovery plan.
Paul, you started this entire blog off with a personal insult "Jindals SIMPLETONIAN Speech..." so don't lecture me about insults you have a hard time with hard facts like Jason and I pointed out. You prefer making people who agree with you feel good and those that oppose you feel guilty, i'm not one of your college students Paul won't work here.
Paul, Paul...regardless of what you call yourself you still fall falt on your face when implying that somehow the people who already pay the vast majority of income taxes should somehow pay more. Show me a case where increased taxation on anyone, let alone those in society who actually help create jobs, has benefited the nation as a whole.
Furthermore who is to say how much the "wealthy" can "easily afford". Who is to even say who is "wealthy"? You? A government bureaucrat? How can you measure such things outside of your own subjective notions? And just how hypocritical is it for Obama and his ilk to talk about taxing people more to "save the economy" while he and those like him live high on the hog on...you guessed it, the taxpayers dime. I am certain, for example, that Nancy Pelosi's jaunt through Europe, where she got smacked down by the Pope, was in the best interest of this country. Perhaps before you and those you support start screeching for more money from those who already pay the most, you would fork over more out of your own funds and practice what you preach.
I believe the income tax should entirely be eliminated (the Ron Paul platform) It is actually not at all unreasonable - without an income tax we would have the same amount of revenue as ten years ago - but we would need to dramatically cut spending, ESPECIALLY overseas. Unfortunately, like Bush, Obama has no plans to shrink our overseas empire - in fact he is sending MORE troops to Afghanistan, and leaving a great number of them in Iraq.
Deputy - right - last time I checked, Jindal was a public figure. Insulting an official is very different from insulting someone with whom you're having a conversation - so I will continue to lecture you about your lack of civility. (And right, you're not one of my college students - they have a far better grasp of the rules of civil discourse than you do - whatever their opinions).
Cooldaddy - read a little history. The income tax, enacted before WWI, helped create the prosperity of the 1920s. And there are plenty of other examples.
And it is obvious arithmetic that a billionaire can afford to pay much higher taxes, in contrast to someone who makes 100,000 dollars a year, who can't.
hj: Obama is leaving more troops in Iraq than Bush? I don't think so. Or, if what you're saying is that he's leaving more troops than he originally said he would, that's true, and very regrettable - but at least it's a step in the right direction,
As to doing away with the income tax completely - I would certainly be interested in looking at other possibilities. But, first, we've got to get out of the financial mess that Bush brought us.
Paul, I know you won't waste your time looking at economic facts but they are out there for your perusal. I believe you would find that there is general consensus amongst those who actually know something about economics that productivity decreases as income tax rates increase. The Bush tax cuts of 2003 helped, for example, to pull us out of stupor the economy was in due to the recession of the early '00s and the 9/11 attacks. You will also see that government tax revenue does not increase simply because the tax rate increases...in fact it often has the opposite effect.
But again, I suppose that is asking too much from you to actually look at some economic data. Feel free to continue on in your bubble.
I didn't watch Jindal's entire speech, but I liked what I saw. He correctly criticized Republicans for not following their own ideologies during the Bush years. Republicans have always argued for lower spending, smaller government, and a more balanced budget, but over the last eight years they failed to follow their own advide. Jindal simply repeated Republican rhetoric and then called on Republicans to actually turn this rhetoric into policy. What's wrong with that?
Also, it's not fair to compare these two speeches. Obama delivered his speech to a Congress full of people who agree with him and stood up to cheer every time he paused. Jindal stood in a quiet room and spoke into a camera. OF COURSE Obama's speech is going to have a greater theatrical impact.
The only thing I wish Jindal had done was applaud Obama's promise to cut taxes and decrease the deficit. These are Republican principals, and Jindal could have easily spun this to argue that Republican ideology was still thriving and then challenged Obama to actually follow through with his promises.
It doesn't matter that this speech is poorly received now. In four years, if Jindal runs against Obama, he will be able to point to this speech as evidence that he is not like the other Republicans, and that the country can trust him to restore the party to its original principals, and he can point to Obama's inability to cut the deficit in half (and let's be real, that simply won't happen), as evidence that Democratic ideology simply doesn't work.
Eric: Right On! I think you pointed out very well the difference between many on the right vs. many on the left. We believe in substance over form, they believe in form over substance. Simply talking is not a solution, as we are seeing. I think this is also why every time President Obama's lips, or one of his staff's lips move about the economy we see the Dow dip even lower.
People can talk about the delivery of his speech, what about the content? They can even call him a simpleton as the author of this blog did. The content of the speech was solid and steeped in facts. Facts seem to really cause a problem with today's left. It's easy to get over emotional and base everything on feelings, but in the end that does nothing but make a situation worse.
Jason wrote: "Paul, I know you won't waste your time looking at economic facts but they are out there for your perusal. I believe you would find that there is general consensus amongst those who actually know something about economics that productivity decreases as income tax rates increase."
Hmmm ... I read Paul Krugman - you know, the recent Nobel Laureate in economics? - and he thinks government spending and increases in taxation of the rich increase prosperity. And, in fact, most economists disagree with you (Reich, Summers, etc).
I also note that, like Deputy, you're still resorting to personal insult. When you don't have the facts or logic on your side, I guess that's the best you can do.
Eric: Herbert Hoover agreed with you that cutting the deficit was the best way of combating the Great Depression.
Deputy: Read my post. I said little about Jindal's style. I pointed out his repeated misrepresentation of Obama's program. I'm really beginning to wonder about you: do you ever bother to read what you criticize?
Eric says: "I didn't watch Jindal's entire speech, but I liked what I saw. He correctly criticized Republicans for not following their own ideologies during the Bush years. Republicans have always argued for lower spending, smaller government, and a more balanced budget, but over the last eight years they failed to follow their own advide. Jindal simply repeated Republican rhetoric and then called on Republicans to actually turn this rhetoric into policy. What's wrong with that?"
I call bullsh*t and I'll tell you why:
1. It's a lot more than just the last eight years. Republicans have *NEVER* followed their own rhetoric *IN LIVING MEMORY*. Reagan was in many ways the worst offender of all, and during the campaign Republican candidates stampeded over one another to sing his praise in a truly disgusting show of hypocrisy and ignorance. Ignorace of history and their own principles.
2. If Republicans really want to demonstrate that they have changed, those in congress can right away introduce legislation to cut their own salaries. There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from doing so this very moment. Even if it doesn't pass, it makes a statement. Until this happens, they need to STFU about their high-falutin' ideals. Unless there's meaningful action, it's nothing but hot air -- which is increasingly appearing to be a Republican specialty.
3. "More balanced budget" is absolute bullsh*t. You either have an overspending budget or you do not. Tax payer dollars are, or should be, sacred to politicians and especially to Republicans. If it's one penny off then they have failed. If you are not also insisting on this, then you don't really understand fiscal conservatism. You just say you do.
Do I hold Republicans to a different standard than Democrats? Yes, I do, because there is only one thing worse than the wasteful spending we have seen, and that is being a two-faced liar while spending wastefully. At least what the Democrats do match what they say.
And this Fife character: You are no different than every other right-wing supporter currently complaining about Obama being a socialist for wanting to remove the Bush tax cut. We've always had a progressive tax structure. Always. Where were your complaints about the country being socialist during Republican administrations? Why all the noise now? Do you have any idea how ludicrous your position is?
I subscribe to Libertarian views and want the government vastly reduced as well. The time for that reduction, if it should ever happen, is *AFTER* we fix the current mess that we are in right now. That's the bottom line.
A pleasure to read your well-reasoned comment, Steve - especially the last two paragraphs, which are spot on.
I agree with you Steve, except for the implication at the end that we need to sacrifice libertarian views to save ourselves now. The truth is we got into this mess through excessive borrowing, spending, inflating, and regulating. Therefore even more borrowing, spending, inflating, and regulating is NOT the solution. I highly recommend reading the recent NYTimes Bestseller, "Meltdown: A free-market look at why the stock market crashed, the economy tanked, and government bailouts will make things worse." Please listen to the interview that I posted above and let me know your response:
http://libertymaven.com/2009/02/25/tom-woods-talks-meltdown-on-brian-and-the-judge/4498/
Anon - first, please use your real name here - Tom Woods - because when more than one person comments as "Anonymous," it can get confusing...
But as to your podcast: you're the one who's utterly wrong: Unemployment dropped from 25 to 10 percent between 1933 and 1936. True, it came back somewhat after 1936, but that's because FDR started reducing spending. You know these figures as well as anyone - why do you keep misleading people? Jonathan Alter, Paul Krugman, and numerous other historians and economists are correct. And while you're at it, see McMillion's The 'FDR Failed' Myth for statistics on the dynamic growth of the GDP during FDR's tenure, which I'm sure you already know. You think McMillion is making that up?
Hayek, by the way, was right to extol the value of free enterprise - but Keynes was more to the point that government spending is needed to dig out of a depression.
Indeed, Hoover and his attempt to balance the budget - limit Fed spending - was responsible for the bad shape of the country when FDR took over.
Hah. I'm not Tom Woods- I just saw his interview on liberty maven. I'm the same anon as above.
Which proves my point that anonymous IDs can be confusing.
Why don't you at least use a pseudonym?
Paul, Kudos to you for being willing to subject yourself to all of this & for being reasonably nice in your responses. I have to say that your bias is clear, however: Anything Bush or Republicans do = evil, anything Obama or Democrats do = pious and good. I just wish we could have the conversations without all the finger-pointing- I happen to believe that both are trying to do the right thing. I didn't even see Bobby Jindal's speech, but I can't imagine how hard it would be to cram years of economic study, practice & observation into an hour long sound bite. You have to know as well as anyone that the politicians who can spin the "lies, damn lies & statistics" into the most popular sount bites are the ones who seem to be the most successful. Most people can't seem to get past Ron Paul's mannerisms, for example, to even listen to what he is really saying. It makes me sad that people are so shallow.
I am actually taking my required under-grad Econ class now, and for the most part, it seems to suggest that taxes & government hurt effeciency of the market. There are some arguements that just because taxes lower GDP doesn't mean its a bad thing- for example, if an economy wants to spend money on lowering pollution, they can, but at a cost to GDP & economic growth (based on CEPR.net/Dean Baker). My basic economic book has several instances where is states that "Most economists criticize the federal govts actions in the early 1930's because they believe these decisions made the Great Depression more severe." So I think your boy, McMillon, might be in the minority when he glosses over the importance of the stock market and employment in his article. He can't just talk about GDP because govt spending is a component of it, so of course it will increase GDP- fat lotta good it will do if it can't spark private enterprise or long term investment. So, maybe I am being indoctrinated by a "conservative education system" in your view?
I do have to say, that the book also demonstrates how govt intervention has evolved over the years and has been a stabilizing force in the market since the 1950s, including the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton & W. years. None of them stripped away large portions of the policy, and if anything refined it. Obama, on the other hand, appears to want to drastically change the level of gov't involvement in the economy. It seems to me that it might be a bit excessive and I think many fear we cannot go back once it starts.
GJ - Just noticed this comment, or I would have responded sooner -
Briefly -
1. If you read through my posts here, you'll see I do criticize Obama and/or the Democrats where warranted. For example, I thought - and still think - Obama should denounce the passage of Prop 8 in California.
2. About taxes hurting or helping: McMillion is not at all in the minority. The idea that FDR helped get us out of Great Depression is not only correct, but was endorsed by economists to the point of almost becoming a cliche. Yes, there are some - like Hayek - who disagreed. But the line from Keynes to Krugman is mighty.
Best of luck in your studies, in any case, and I hope you continue to comment here.
Post a Comment