Awesome. Via Think Progress:
On Sunday, during an appearance on Meet The Press, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell confronted Newt Gingrich for falsely predicting in 1993 that the economy would suffer if then-President Bill Clinton raised marginal tax rates.
Republican are making a similar argument against President Obama’s call to raise marginal tax rates on the richest Americans, even though the economy and jobs grew exponentially during the Clinton years when the top marginal tax rate was at 39.6 percent for the top income earners.
…Indeed, in 1993 when President Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top income earners, Gingrich and the Republicans argued that the hikes would result in economic decline and result in huge deficits. They were proven wrong. The country experienced the “longest period of economic growth in U.S. history, increased business investment, 23 million jobs added, and, of course, budget surpluses.” The same boom did not materialize after President George W. Bush enacted his tax cuts; the country experienced large deficits and the weakest job and income growth in the post-war era.
O’Donnell actually said: “Newt, [we] have been waiting for your apology for 20 years for being completely wrong about that.”
Of course, in the fake world of the media, no one ever apologizes for being flat wrong. In this case the cost of being wrong was a decade of flat wages, lost jobs, and rising poverty in America – culminating in the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, and ongoing economic sabotage by Republicans in Congress. They are still threatening to kill the recovery out of pure hyperpartisanship even after President Obama agreed to make 98 percent of the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich permanent.
#1 by cav on December 9, 2012 - 5:33 pm
Digby:
“…let’s have a little discussion of what a “trial balloon” is. It is, simply, a rumor that’s purposefully spread during a negotiation in order to gauge the reaction. Therefore, it is important to react, not act all glib and self-assured that it could never happen. They want to know if you think this is a good idea, so if you don’t, you should say so. And you should say it in a shrill enough fashion that they know it’s a very big deal, if you think it’s a very big deal. Even if you think the President is adamantly opposed to cutting vital social welfare programs – which I don’t since he’s said he is willing to make “tough choices” many, many times – he is helped in that by a shrill base rising up to counter the Boehner tea party freak show on the right. Whether you think he’s got your best interest at heart or that he’s trying to do a Grand Bargain, reacting shrilly to ideas to cut the safety net and other vital programs that affect real people is completely appropriate. This is the public part of the negotiations and it’s important that they hear from you.”
Read it again. It’s OK.
#2 by brewski on December 10, 2012 - 12:08 pm
It is true that the 1990′s appeared to be pretty good. It is also true that the timing of this only happened after the GOP took control of Congress. It is also true that the timing of this also only happened when the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to skyrocket resulting in an unsustainable and eventually tragic asset price bubble. It crashed and it crashed hard and we are all paying for it now. It is also true that the rest of the world has reformed their tax codes over the last 20 years and we have not. More specifically they have reformed their corporate tax code to not drive away capital and jobs. The rest of the world has done this and we have not. In 1994 there were 14 countries with corporate tax rates higher than the US. Today there are none. They changed, we have not. That is costing us jobs.
#3 by Richard Warnick on December 10, 2012 - 1:08 pm
Corporate Profits Skyrocket While Corporate Taxes Plummet
Headline says it all!
#4 by brewski on December 10, 2012 - 1:29 pm
Confirms my point.
#5 by brewski on December 10, 2012 - 1:55 pm
The low taxes paid are due to several reasons:
1. ARRA included several temporary tax provisions which will expire in 2012. So if you don’t like ARRA, then blame Obama.
2. Corporate profits and corporate profits and corporate profits in the US are not the same thing. Companies could be making tons of profits in China and paying Chinese taxes. They don’t pay US taxes are repatriated, which may be never.
3. Related to (2), the US tax code incentivizes companies to never repatriate profits from lower tax rate jurisdictions (all of them).
So, yes, says it it all. Says it all. Says it all.
It says that the US tax code sucks and doesn’t even pass the first basic test of collecting taxes. It says it all. I am glad you agree.
#6 by Richard Warnick on December 10, 2012 - 4:06 pm
Billionaires Warn Higher Taxes Could Prevent Them From Buying Politicians
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Introducing a new wrinkle into the already fraught fiscal cliff showdown, a consortium of billionaires today warned that if their taxes are raised they will no longer have enough money to buy politicians.
The group, led by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, commissioned a new study showing that the cost of an average politician has soared exponentially over the past decade.
While the American family has seen increases in the cost of food, health care and education, Mr. Adelson says, “those costs don’t compare with the cost of buying a politician, which has gone through the roof.”
The casino billionaire points to his group’s study, which puts the cost of purchasing an average House member at two million dollars and an average senator at several times that.
“And let’s say you buy a senator like Jim DeMint and he decides to quit,” Mr. Adelson says. “Good luck trying to get your money back.”
The Vegas magnate complains that the media has ignored billionaires’ essential role in giving jobs to politicians who would otherwise have difficulty finding “honest work of any kind.”
“Billionaires are providing employment for a group of seriously incompetent and marginal people,” Mr. Adelson says. “You raise taxes on us, and who’s going to create those jobs? I really don’t think people have thought this through.”
Adding insult to injury for America’s billionaires, he says, “the simple dream of someday owning a President is slipping out of reach.”
“People think a billion dollars buys you a President, but they’re wrong,” he says. “It barely gets you a lemon like Mitt Romney.”
#7 by cav on December 11, 2012 - 9:58 am
Why is it that poor people are supposed to make decisions without consideration of the financial consequences, but wealthy people (“job creators, billionaires” ) and corporations must be bribed to do the right thing? (and even then, they don’t)
#8 by Larry Bergan on December 11, 2012 - 6:43 pm
Is that Borowitz report for real?
Were those actual quotes from Adelson?
#9 by Richard Warnick on December 11, 2012 - 6:55 pm
No, Andy Borowitz is a satirist.
#10 by Larry Bergan on December 11, 2012 - 6:58 pm
OK.
I just wanted to know for sure. Thanks.
You have to admit that, these days, it’s hard to tell what’s real or not.
Perfect case in point:
GOP Consultant: Voter ID And Long Lines Help Our Side
#11 by Larry Bergan on December 11, 2012 - 8:01 pm
Plus, the governor of Florida said the exact same thing about voter I.D. laws. In public!
Plus, this supposed GOP consultant only got $3000 bucks from the Romney campaign, so maybe he was just telling the truth – which we all know to be accurate by now: the GOP has been actively causing long lines in poor districts and using ALEC tactics to use voter I.D. laws which prevent democrats from voting.
In other words: come on!
#12 by cav on December 11, 2012 - 8:30 pm
.