Malkin Award
Tweet
Does it set of Michelle Malkin’s internal irony meter when she claims that Democrats buy the black vote when she is in fact paid by wealthy white men to smear her fellow minorities?
I don’t think so.
30 Responses to “Malkin Award”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
How about all the wealthy white churches that donate to Bush, Yeager?
It happens all the time, Malkin just picks and chooses what fits her ignorant agenda.
Malkin aside, Oliver, how do you feel about wealthy white men throwing money at black churches in exchange for endorsements? What about separation of church and state? Where’s the outrage?
He didn’t say “wealthy white DEMOCRATIC men”, so what are you being so defesnive about?
Wait…I thought this was suppossed to be a poor defense. Now it’s OK?
Only if you are trying to claim breathing is bad, which you are not.
You don’t see a difference between giving a politician money and a politician giving you money?
So, me giving him money so that he does my bidding (which is what lobbying firms/ the whole religous right do) or him giving me money to vote for him? Thats a great question. So a politician promising tax breaks for an entire group (the wealthy) is any different?? Funny, you see a democrat giving churches money as a bad thing, he did it to gain their votes….agreed! George Bush cuts taxes, which technically, gives money back to people (if you’re lucky enough to be one of the few) and he’s supposed to be doing somehting noble. Please spare me.
JWG.
Nice logic……not at all…
Both sides breathe too, am I using a poor defense now? How about instead of trying to distort an issue, you…..nm. What i said, if you read it, was that I don’t believe either side is doing anything wrong in this scenario. I don’t see a problem with churches giving money to Georgie to push their agenda and I dont see anythig wrong with politicians giving churches giving money in order to “gain voters”. It’s part of politics and for Malkin to bitch about it is kind of one sided.
Not that difficult.
PSU, I am not outraged. Quite the opposite. Kind of saying it happens on both sides.
I forgot: That is, of course, if they were so reminded.
George Bush cuts taxes, which technically, gives money back to people (if you re lucky enough to be one of the few) and he s supposed to be doing somehting noble. Please spare me.
I’m convinced that all the people who say only “the few” or “the rich” benefitted from those tax cuts are either:
A. Very stupid
B. Unemployed
If they’re not working, they of course would not see the benefits of the tax reductions in question. It’s that or they cannot do the simple math to see they are not paying the same tax rate now, they were paying 4 years ago.
Even people who don’t work might be able to see the benefit of plowing money back into the economy, or, at least, not removing it from the economy, so individual citizens can spend it the way they choose.
Now hold on there.
Are you saying that a dollar I spend has a different effect on the economy than a dollar the government spends?
The way I see it, the dollar gets “plowed back into the economy” either way. The only difference is in who decides how to spend it.
I think the credit card companies are doing us a favor by flooding us all with offers of more and more credit lines.
Accept as many cards as you are offered. It, along with cash-outs on home equity, as well as trading up to homes with interest only loans (five years converts to ARM) is the way to go.
That leads to more customers buying stuff and it also results in continued momentum in the economy because durable goods continue flowing freely through the wholesale pipeline..
Let’s just max out every credit option we have to keep this economy going.
Isn’t that what Bush advised us after 9/11? Keep shopping america! It’s your patriotic duty. China agrees!
the problem is that there’s so far no proof that voodoo (aka ‘supply-side) economics theory actually works–i remain unconvinced that buying a new Jaguar or a pied-a-terre in New York City is actually doing anything for the economy beyond the luxury items market.
take a look at our country’s budget deficit, and tell me that it’s not a looming problem–I hope you enjoyed the measly few dollars that Bush threw back at you to ‘buy your vote,’ but I guess you guys are ok with that.
I m convinced that all the people who say cutting taxes benefits people, while the same people demand the same (or greater) level of services are either:
A. Very stupid
B. Uneducated
C. Don’t care about their kids’ future
D. Jay Caruso
E. All of the above
The simple truth is that you can’t spend and spend without paying it for it some time.
And the fact of the matter is dupes like Jay will see the bill come due sooner than his political masters.
Are you saying that a dollar I spend has a different effect on the economy than a dollar the government spends?
Your damned right it does. When you spend a dollar, it goes directly to the retailer or service provider. The government has to put it through layers of bureacracy before it gets anywhere else. As such, that dollar turns out to be more like a quarter.
I m convinced that all the people who say cutting taxes benefits people, while the same people demand the same (or greater) level of services are either:
A. Very stupid
B. Uneducated
C. Don t care about their kids future
D. Jay Caruso
E. All of the above
Flanagan, if you would actually respond to what a person actually writes, it would be a miracle. What on earth does anything I said have to do with the level of services somebody demands. Here is a simple fact: When Bush signed his tax cuts, anybody who pays federal income taxes, had their tax rates reduced, not just “the rich.” If you liberals could debate the issue honestly, it would an interesting discussion. But all you clowns ever want to do is talk about Republicans “cutting taxes for the rich” and “taking from the poor.” Blah blah blah blah. Over and over again.
The simple truth is that you can t spend and spend without paying it for it some time.
Another ridiculous left wing talking point. In the mind of a liberal, a reduction in taxes is considered “spending” on the part of the government.
And the fact of the matter is dupes like Jay will see the bill come due sooner than his political masters.
Uh huh. The actual “bill” comes in the form of Social Security and Medicare, something which liberals, aside from raising taxes, have no plans to remedy. It’s a total “hands off” issue even though they’re both in trouble.
I have to laugh. Watching Jay carry on about tax cuts in a time of record breaking deficits.
Jay fails to realize that after all is said and done, over the long-term tax cuts have to be paid for by long-term cuts in spending.
So he throws up his hands and says…it’s all about the liberals not wanting to do anyting with those darned entitlements.
Grow a pair, Caruso.
JK
Your damned right it does. When you spend a dollar, it goes directly to the retailer or service provider. The government has to put it through layers of bureacracy before it gets anywhere else. As such, that dollar turns out to be more like a quarter.
Jay, did you attend college? Seriously, did you?
So, let’s get this straight–when the Govt spends a dollar, it goes into this meatgrinder called bureaucracy and magically transforms that dollar into a quarter. Where’s the other 75 cents go? Under the big bureaucratic mattress?
When Bush signed his tax cuts, anybody who pays federal income taxes, had their tax rates reduced, not just the rich.
The rich received the most benefit–that’s beyond dispute. And the fact is that if you’re not rich, your tax cut amounted to very little. And given the state of AWOL George’s poor economy, that tax cut has had no effect on your life.
Oh…any token tax I got as a result of George W. Bush’s generosity–giving me back my money…well, here’s the price to pay:
1.) Fed raising interest rates long-term.
2.) slowed economic growth (percent of GDP diverted to buying Government bonds).
2.) Probably recession at some point if Reagan’s huge deficits of the 80′s are any predictor. C
Not just my view, but that of the CBO as well, if the tax cuts are extended.
People like Jay…it’s pretty much all about what’s in their wallet. They don’t see the big picture. We *clearly* saw the economic and social toll of high deficits in the early 1990′s, and also the unprecedented prosperity that resulted when we finally had a President (Clinton) and Sec. of the Treasury (Rubin) that made fiscal responsibility a priority.
JK
Thomas Sowell, for one, has suggested a simple 10% reduction in government spending, across the board, and, as revenues natuarally rise, the deficits will be eliminated on an annual basis, until some of the “back” deficit can be addressed. I believe Walter Williams favors a similar plan, from the “tax cut” perspective.
A few points from above require addressing.
First of all, allowing people to keep a little more of their money “this year” than “last year” means two things (in addition to avoiding the bureaucrat ‘meat grinder’ mentioned by Jay, above): 1) People spend the money as they choose — remember “freedom”? — so they just plain feel better; and 2) Because people spend money as they choose, the money is used for free market choices, as opposed to the dictates of 535 people in Washington, D.C.
Second, a reduction in tax rates does not necessarily result in revenue reduction. This is the true significance of the Laffer Curve — not “trickle down” economics, which is another issue entirely.
Third, tax cuts are not “paid for” by anything. Tax cuts are the exact same thing as tax credits, they are a reduction in the amount of money people take out of their paychecks, and hand over, without stipulation, to the federal government.
Fourth, tax rate reduction means that the amount of tax paid on the “next dollar” a person earns will be less than it once was. Obviously, this means that if I pay, for example, 21% on the dollar, I get to keep 79 cents of the next dollar I earn. If I pay tax at a 16% rate, I get to keep 84 cents of the next dollar I earn. From that point of view, tax rate reduction benefits the lower income brackets more than the upper income brackets.
Fifth, another possible solution to the “Social Security problem,” is to separate out Soc / Sec Disability and SSI from the Pension piece, so that there will be one contribution to retirement, under greater control by the contributor, while the contribution to Disability and Supplemental Security Income can be fixed and mandatory.
Watching Jay carry on about tax cuts in a time of record breaking deficits.
Another bogus talking point. First of all, the deficits are not “record breaking.” There’s this thing called inflation and percentage of GDP. Look it up.
Jay fails to realize that after all is said and done, over the long-term tax cuts have to be paid for by long-term cuts in spending.
Spending does not need to be “cut.” What needs to happen is a slow down in the growth. You don’t allocate a 10% increase when only a 5% increase is needed. Of course, in liberalville, reducing the growth rate of a spending program is the same as a “cut.” Of course, I’ve always told people that the next time they get a 5% raise at work instead of the 8% they were expecting to complain to their boss that he “cut” their salary and watch him laugh.
So he throws up his hands and says& it s all about the liberals not wanting to do anyting with those darned entitlements.
I’m not throwing up my hands. Entitlement makes up 2/3 of all government spending and is growing at a rate of 7% a year. Those programs need reform. If you can point to any real reform that Democrat has ever suggested beyond:
A. Raising the retirement age
B. Raising payroll taxes
I’d be interested in reading it, but I won’t hold my breath.
From a new Blog:
Top Ten Reasons the Economy is Strong
10.9 percent growth in exports.
9.0 percent growth in small business income.
8.2 percent growth in household net worth.
7.0 percent growth in wage and salary income.
6.0 percent growth in investment in last six months.
5.0 percent unemployment in June.
4.4 percent average GDP growth since June 2003.
3.7 percent growth in manufacturing output.
2.5 percent inflation.
1.9 million jobs created since July 2004.
Yet, if you ask some of the folks around here, they will swear up and down, screaming and yelling, that the economy is hellish, and is on the verge of collapse, if it has not already done so.
Pointing out the positive attributes of the current economy makes one a poster boy for political swine management. Apparently, when those inconvenient facts get in the way, it is easier to resort to name calling.
Dennis Hastert;
The resident poster boy for political swine management
Credibility is a bitch when it runs from you like pigs in heat.
Even if Hastert were a pathological liar, Leo, which one of those stats is in dispute?
You “dug up” the fact that it was Hastert’s blog — a masterpiece of investigation, given the link, now “dig up” something that refutes the stats…
Jadegold…
So, let s get this straight when the Govt spends a dollar, it goes into this meatgrinder called bureaucracy and magically transforms that dollar into a quarter. Where s the other 75 cents go? Under the big bureaucratic mattress?
Are you serious? If a beaurocracy has to be maintained in order to collect and spend money, then yes, for every dollar that comes in, a smaller amount comes out the other end. It’s like donating to a charity: it’s very important to consider the overhead, other wise you end up contributing to the salaries and electrical bills of the organization. Would your rather give $100 directly to a needy family, or give it to an agency that takes 25% of it to keep the lights on? How much does that family get in the latter case?
As for your question, let me turn it around and ask you one: if my dad gives me $20k, and I keep it for a year and then give it back to him, and then he keeps it for a year and gives it back to me, after several years it will be completely gone. Where did it go?
No, it’s a wash.
I have two dollars.
I give one to the government as taxes. The other, I spend at Starbuck’s.
The government dollar contributes to paying the salaries of bureaucrats, soldiers, and elected officials, who in turn take their salaries and put them in bank accounts which are loaned to home buyers who hire contractors who spend the money at Starbuck’s.
The dollar I spend at Starbuck’s pays salaries to baristas, managers, and executives who buy coffee beans from overseas through distributors and create profits for shareholders. The distributors and shareholders pay taxes (just like I do) which funds government.
In neither case is there a retirement of money. The flow of money doesn’t “puddle” anywhere that forces it out of circulation.
You can argue that the service produced by government is inefficient and therefore a bad deal. But the money isn’t as Frank D and Jay C insist, sucked out of the economy.
Quaker;
I’ve tried to make this point with same before.
The hated ‘New Deal’s’ public works program was funded by taxes.
The Republicans of that day were much like the conservatives of today.
They hated the idea, because it was funded taxes.
The Big Wheel runs better when there’s a lot of grease. But when you pack all the grease in one spot, or on just one wheel, economic transport is slowed and stopped. They want to pack it. We want to spread it around.