[Update, 9:00 pm EDT: Audio and video clips added.]
President Obama isn't nearly liberal enough for HBO's Bill Maher. On Tuesday’s Situation Room on CNN, Maher repeated the focus of his rant on his show last Friday night about how Obama hasn't been adequately aggressive. When Wolf Blitzer asked what he was most disappointed about with President Obama, the HBO host went into full denial mode: “Barack Obama is not a socialist -- he’s not even a liberal....this country needs a left wing. It doesn’t have it, and part of the reason is the media.”
After Maher gave a bit of a criticism of the Democratic President, the CNN anchor asked: “So where are you most disappointed, because...a lot of liberals are disappointed he hasn’t done more to advance gay rights, for example- but where- where are you most disappointed in this president?” The HBO host first joked about his sexual identity, and continued by expressing his bewilderment with Obama: “I don’t know if this administration has really caught up to the idea that Americans are a lot more liberal, perhaps, than we think they are- or they think they are....I think part of the problem is that we don’t really have a progressive party in this country. We have the Democrats, who are what the Republicans used to be when I was a kid. They’re a pro-business party, a corporate-friendly, pro-business party. And then we have the Republicans, which are just a club for angry white people and Jesus freaks” [audio clips from interview available here].
Blitzer interrupted at this point and interjected with some of the GOP’s rhetoric about the president: “But if you listen to a lot of Republicans, they think that this president is moving the country towards socialism.” This is where he made his denial about Obama not being a socialist, or even a liberal: "This country needs a left wing. It doesn’t have it, and part of the reason is the media.....where’s the left wing? You know, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich- these are left-wing people, although their ideas are not really that radical. But they’re presented as radical in the media....So really what we have is a debate between the center-right- the Democratic Party, and the far, far, far right -- the Republican Party.”
Later, after a discussion on foreign policy, where Maher, at one point, compared President Obama to a famous rock guitarist (“We know he’s a fantastic speechmaker. He’s Jimi Hendrix and that Teleprompter is his guitar.”), the anchor concluded by asking the HBO host about the controversy between David Letterman and Sarah Palin and her family. Maher thought the CBS host didn’t need to apologize to the Alaska governor, and sympathized: “I think it’s a real shame. David Letterman should not have had to apologize....and it just bothers me- the way some lie gets into the media- and then, it becomes the truth....It was not offensive in any way, and they made it sound like he said something completely different. So he’s apologizing for something he never meant, never thought, and never said. I ‘ve been through this, Wolf. It stinks.” Of course, Maher signed off with another crack at Sarah Palin, using Blitzer's first name as a prop: “Don’t let Sarah Palin shoot you from a helicopter, Wolf.” The transcript of the relevant portion of the Blitzer/Maher interview, which began 14 minutes into the 6 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER: So where are you most disappointed, because I know a lot of people on the Left- a lot of liberals are disappointed he [President Obama] hasn’t done more to advance gay rights, for example- but where- where are you most disappointed in this president?
BILL MAHER: Why do you bring up that with me, Wolf? What have you heard?
BLITZER: Nothing.
MAHER: No- (laughs) no, I mean, that’s certainly something that I know gay people are upset about. It doesn’t affect my life personally, because I never understand marriage and I’ve never understood being gay, so- (laughs) I don’t really have a dog in that fight. And I understand why an issue like that can be place on the back burner, except America has changed. I don’t know if this administration has really caught up to the idea that Americans are a lot more liberal, perhaps, than we think they are- or they think they are. They’ve changed on that issue. They’ve changed on a lot of issues. And I think part of the problem is that we don’t really have a progressive party in this country. We have the Democrats, who are what the Republicans used to be when I was a kid. They’re a pro-business party- a corporate-friendly, pro-business party. And then we have the Republicans, which are just a club for angry white people and Jesus freaks- I don’t know what they are. What we need-
BLITZER: But if you listen to a lot of Republicans, they think that this president is moving the country towards socialism.
MAHER: Yes- which is so ridiculous, because Barack Obama is not a socialist- he’s not even a liberal. That’s the point I’m trying to make, is that this country needs a left wing. It doesn’t have it- and part of the reason is the media. Part of the reason is because Newt Gingrich- I have to look at his fat face on television every day- he represents- I don’t know what- that far-right of kooky-town. And yet, where’s the left wing? You know, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich- these are left-wing people, although their ideas are not really that radical. But they’re presented as radical in the media. They’re seen as buffoons. So really what we have is a debate between the center-right- the Democratic Party, and the far, far, far right- the Republican Party. There really isn’t a balance in this country, and it really doesn’t represent the people.
BLITZER: So- but I- but bottom line is you think this president is more interested in trying to stay popular, or in getting the people’s work done?
MAHER: Well, look, first of all- he’s doing a really hard job, and I’m really glad he’s president- let’s not lose perspective. But yeah- I mean, when you read the paper every day, you are a little disheartened that they can’t push through some- some very progressive legislation- pretty much in full measure. It seems like very little nibbling- environmental issues- you know, a four percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020- you know, why don’t we just have a bill that says- screw it, we’re toast. Just enjoy everything you do and don’t even try.
BLITZER: How do you like the way- how do you like the way he’s handling national security, specifically, for example, what’s happening in Iran right now.
MAHER: Oh, I think he’s terrific on- on foreign affairs, but that’s the easy part, because you don’t need to negotiate with insurance companies and credit card companies and the people who are lobbying- the people who make campaign contributions, and the corporations that have such a stranglehold on our government, making, you know- we- we know he’s a fantastic speechmaker. He’s Jimi Hendrix and that Teleprompter is his guitar. So when he goes and makes that speech in Cairo- you saw, there are people in the street in Tehran who are saying- oh, I hope Obama is backing us. Well, that’s a big difference to go from an American president who- not only is getting Muslim people to like him, but saying that they want him to support them. So yeah, I think he’s doing a terrific job in that area, and- you know, what can- what can he really do to affect what’s going on in Iran right now except use that kind of bully pulpit. I just wish he would bring that sort of influence to- to some of the issues we have here at home.
BLITZER: Some of these domestic issues- we’re almost out of time, but a quick question. On David Letterman’s apology to Sarah Palin and her daughters- what do you think?
MAHER: (Laughs) I think it’s a real shame. David Letterman should not have had to apologize. You know, I ‘ve known David Letterman a long time. We’ve all watched him a very long time. He’s a very fundamentally decent Midwesterner. It’s just not in his DNA to have said something that they’re accusing him of saying, and it just bothers me- the way some lie gets into the media- and then, it becomes the truth. Somehow, it became conventional wisdom now that David Letterman made a rape joke about a 14-year-old. I promise you, the 14-year-old was not in their minds. They made a joke about Alex Rodriguez, because he has a certain reputation as a player. Sarah Palin was at Yankee Stadium, where Alex Rodriguez plays. Her family is very fertile- her daughter did get impregnated before she was married. It was an easy and obvious joke to make. It was funny. It was not offensive in any way, and they made it sound like he said something completely different. So he’s apologizing for something he never meant, never thought, and never said. I ‘ve been through this, Wolf. It stinks.
BLITZER: I know you’ve been through it- and we’re going to continue to watch your show every week on our sister network- HBO, ‘Real Time’ with Bill Maher. Airs Friday nights, as I recall- is that right, Bill?
MAHER: Yes, it is- don’t let Sarah Palin shoot you from a helicopter, Wolf.
BLITZER: (Laughs).
MAHER: You see.
BLITZER: I’ll try. Bill Maher, thanks very much.
MAHER: Okay.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.





WOLF BLITZER: So where are you most disappointed, because I know a lot of people on the Left- a lot of liberals are disappointed he [President Obama] hasn’t done more to advance gay rights, for example- but where- where are you most disappointed in this president?














Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The government taking over
June 16, 2009 - 19:14 ET by Mitchell BlattThe government taking over GM, taking away the secret ballot, taking over healthcare, and taxing carbon is already more progressive than most Americans are, and the New Democratic Party will learn that in 2010.
And don't forget Dems are
June 16, 2009 - 19:44 ET by zfAnd don't forget Dems are only pro-business and pro-corporate when a business and/or corporation abandons capitalism and joins them on their socialist-progressive crusades.
zf... Yep...those words
June 16, 2009 - 19:53 ET by bigtimerzf...
Yep...those words caught my hair on fire, what audacity the POS has to even say such.
I swear to goodness, what world do these people really live in?
Reality has long left their minds.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
That tells you alot about
June 16, 2009 - 20:08 ET by GregEThat tells you alot about someone like Maher. Obama is stomping on the shininig America with every turn and getting away with it, yet it's not enough for the Mahers of the Left.
They’re [Democrats] a
June 16, 2009 - 19:19 ET by motherbeltThey’re [Democrats] a pro-business party- a corporate-friendly, pro-business party
Pro business? corporate friendly???
Yeah, as long as they can take over and run the corporation and decide gets paid what!
What is he smoking???
They made a joke about Alex Rodriguez, because he has a certain
reputation as a player. Sarah Palin was at Yankee Stadium, where Alex
Rodriguez plays. Her family is very fertile- her daughter did get
impregnated before she was married. It was an easy and obvious joke to
make. It was funny. It was not offensive in any way, and they made it
sound like he said something completely different. So he’s apologizing
for something he never meant, never thought, and never said. (emphasis mine)
It was an easy and obvious joke to make?
Are you saying she was asking for it, Bill??
Not offensive in any way???????
Again, what the hell is this guy smoking?
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
This is part of the new
June 16, 2009 - 19:27 ET by BKeyserThis is part of the new strategy for the Obama campaign- there are several facets in play, as I see it.
As to Maher's comments: this is the one where the critism from the Left is that Obama is too moderate. What this does is confirm to Independents and Republicans who voted for him that he is, in fact, what they thought he was when they voted for him. He's not. It's a shell game.
Another part of the campaign is the "sacrificial house democrats" plan- also known as the "useful idiots" plan. These guys get the opportunity to write policy in the name of Obama. When it passes the sniff test, he'll take credit. When it fails, he'll claim it's not his plan or that he's not quite so far left (see part 1, above.)
And still another part is the "ask to tax everything from soda to cell minutes" plan, which is really the "well, we tried, but those crazy Republicans won't let us do it, so we've got to drastically raise income taxes" plan. This most certainly will happen, it's only a matter of when. If it looks like he'll lose Congress in 2010, they'll pass it before the '10 summer recess. If not, it'll be during his second term.
Obama not a Liberal or Socialist according to...
June 16, 2009 - 19:34 ET by jawebster1Maher? Maher is a ...(fill in the blank). Jim Webster
Posterchild
June 16, 2009 - 22:52 ET by rightwingidiotMaher is a posterchild for the anti-crack moment.
He obviously does a lot of it. How else could one explain what spews out of his piehole.
What a turd.
...And then we have the
June 16, 2009 - 19:40 ET by bigtimer...And then we have the republicans that are just a club for angry white people and Jesus freaks.
Says a lot right there about Maher and his one celled-brain power. ..along with the rest of his bullshite...
He's smoked one doobie to many.
that are nothing more than but Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Maher
June 16, 2009 - 19:41 ET by iveseenitallMaher is a phony getting rich on that of which he is so critical. Hypocrite!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
If Obama is not a liberal,
June 16, 2009 - 19:42 ET by zfIf Obama is not a liberal, than who the hell is? Just goes to show how far left Mahr is.
I guess unless you allow public sexual slavery (aka prostitution) and demand people be allowed to sell crack cocaine, you don't qualify to Mr. Smug Bastard as being liberal enough.
um...
June 17, 2009 - 15:51 ET by 2artanis2...people like Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. Did you read the article?
Here my joke Maher
June 16, 2009 - 20:16 ET by well99Bill has sex with bulls on viagra.Funny isnt it.Who cares what this liar has to say.His boyfriend needs to take him to SF to pimp him out.That way it will shut him up.
Our Lib Prez......
June 16, 2009 - 20:40 ET by connman...has done more to hurt this great country with his "progressive" policies than any previous POTUS in HISTORY! Bill's show on HBO is loaded with Lib guests and every seat in his audience is filled by F'ing Libtards! And who more than Maher epitomizes the "angry old white guy"? I canceled HBO with my cable company and sent HBO an email and told them why. I suggest everyone else do the same. I know some will say to just change the channel but how else can you demonstrate ones' displeasure with its programming? I don't miss it at all.
Our Lib Prez......
June 16, 2009 - 20:41 ET by connman...has done more to hurt this great country with his "progressive" policies than any previous POTUS in HISTORY! Bill's show on HBO is loaded with Lib guests and every seat in his audience is filled by F'ing Libtards! And who more than Maher epitomizes the "angry old white guy"? I canceled HBO with my cable company and sent HBO an email and told them why. I suggest everyone else do the same. I know some will say to just change the channel but how else can you demonstrate ones' displeasure with its programming? I don't miss it at all.
connman
June 16, 2009 - 21:04 ET by well99I agree.I wouldnt watch HBO if it was free.Why support these lying pieces of garbage.Somehow they think they can spread these lies and no one will call them on it.It just shows their contempt for regular people.
How far off-center have we become
June 16, 2009 - 20:23 ET by FastEdwhen this dodo is considered funny? The sad part is that there are too many people who think he's smart!?! The other prob, he hasn't seen or knows how to read the polls! This country is more conservative then the demolibs what to admit, AND, it is starting to get over its collective 'past guilt' and will be realizing that iconic, purdy speaking steet activists, are NOT the answer, but have, and will always be the problem
AND, to make the comparison to Jimi!?*&$%!!! Hendrix "played" the axe, it didn't tell the story for him, Barry can't speak, unless the 'prompter lets him - I could just see the songs, "The Wind Cried Money", "No More Crosstown Traaffic", "Hey Joes (Got More Cash?)", "All Along No More Watchtowers", "Stone No Longer Free".
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Fast... You have me
June 16, 2009 - 20:34 ET by bigtimerFast...
You have me roaring with laughter...your post hit me just right here...
So true...so true!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Bill Maher is full of $h t.
June 16, 2009 - 20:28 ET by nadadhimmiBill Maher is full of $h t.
Alinsky-Obama
June 16, 2009 - 21:07 ET by lotrMaher must be joking; he is a comedian, after all.
Saul Alinsky Principle:
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Bulls-Eye lotr...
June 16, 2009 - 21:15 ET by bigtimerSaul Alinsky Principle:
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Maher claims
June 16, 2009 - 23:16 ET by Lloydohe is a descendant of monkeys. Only fellow monkeys take him seriously.
Yeah, Bill Maher is really
June 16, 2009 - 23:45 ET by fitzfongYeah, Bill Maher is really credible when it comes to determining whether Obama is a Marxist or just a garden-variety socialist. After all, the Playboy Mansion's most famous rohypnol spiker seems to think he's a libertarian.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Maher is wrong about
June 17, 2009 - 01:06 ET by mostlymoderateMaher is wrong about letterman's comment. It was wrong on many accounts. First, Palin might be a public figure than injected herself into the limelight when she entered politics; however, her children never did. Then again, even if you conclude that these children are public figures, Letterman made reference to the chastity of a 14 year old girl and he made reference to to Alex Rodriguez as having sex with this 14 year old girl, making him a pedophile. Sorry, but the chastity of a 14 year old girl and the innuendo that Alex Rodriguez is a pedophile are not funny and are serious grounds for a civil lawsuit.
set the bar low
June 17, 2009 - 06:32 ET by m1xramIf you set the bar as low as BM does, why would anything be offensive? Then BM travels to a parallel universe to tell us that what we saw and heard never actually happened. Liberals are so helpful that way. Maybe if I was a mindless drone I could believe their ____________. (propaganda, BS, prevarications, etc.)
Maher's bottom line must be
June 17, 2009 - 11:37 ET by RR GOPMaher's bottom line must be pretty good.
What's he whining about? Maybe typical Libtard guilt at having it so good while people who prefer not to work have so much less?
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Maher's Publicist
June 17, 2009 - 13:49 ET by Edward CropperOnce again a conservative outlet reports on this butt wipe and gives him more
coverage than he ever gets on his own sorry ass show.
Why do you and other conservative outlets think you have give him any
coverage at all. This worm is utterly non existent to any thinking true liberal
or conservative.
It is not your duty in life to report left-wing blather from a total moron.
media analyst?
June 17, 2009 - 16:08 ET by 2artanis2How is this Matthew Balan a "media analyst"? He summarized and quoted what Maher said, then posted a transcript. I could have read that on CNN! Bring back Sheppard -- now there's some entertaining right-wing ranting!
Oh yeah, and whatever party you're in, Maher's right about the parties. The Democrats may not even get a public healthcare option, forget about single-payer. The two wars are still going, the policies on terrorism, gays, and guns haven't really changed at all, and taxes have gone DOWN. If you right-wing Reagan stalkers ever got a real dose of progressivism, your heads would explode. But you keep on railing against Obama and calling him a socialist -- soon you guys will become completely irrelevant and go the way of the Whigs.
Taxes have gone DOWN?
June 17, 2009 - 16:23 ET by fitzfongTaxes have gone DOWN? Based on that fascinating bit of "logical" interpretation, I'm not too worried about your prediction that we're going "the way of the Whigs" (nice cliche, by the way). You, on the other hand, have illustrated that you're already irrelevant.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
taxes
June 17, 2009 - 17:45 ET by 2artanis2Yeah, you know those tax cuts that Republicans insisted make up 40% of the stimulus package just so they could not vote for it? Those. And let's talk about cliches, like the Playboy Mansion. Ooh, pretty girls in skimpy clothes! Scary!
Palin/Jindal '12!
First of all, you're an
June 17, 2009 - 19:39 ET by fitzfongFirst of all, you're an economic illiterate who makes up facts. Secondly, the operative reference in the Bill Maher/Playboy Mansion "cliche" is not the pretty girls in skimpy clothes, it's the roofies he has to distribute in order to get anywhere with one of them.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
making up facts
June 17, 2009 - 20:51 ET by 2artanis2For some reason, I decided to do a Google search on "Bill Maher roofie", and all I found (besides comments by YOU on websites) is something about a performance of "Hollywood Hellhouse," an improv production where Bill Maher plays the Devil and there are roofies somewhere in the plot. But that's make-believe, dum dum!! So, I think you heard that from one of your friends, or you like to make stuff up.
Oh, and while we're looking up stuff, here are those tax cuts in the stimulus package, from Glenn Beck's site, of all things.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20639/
I think I'm done with this argument, and this website, because I suspect I'm dealing with a crazy person.
Oh, I see. So you
June 17, 2009 - 22:43 ET by fitzfongOh, I see. So you categorize transfers of wealth to people who don't pay taxes as "tax cuts". Brilliant.
The only crazy person you're dealing with is your own split personality.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
whatever
June 18, 2009 - 16:21 ET by 2artanis2Play semantics all you want. You still haven't refuted anything I've said, or backed up that stupid roofie nonsense.
Uh, yes I have...and your
June 18, 2009 - 18:11 ET by fitzfongUh, yes I have...and your first sentence is a tacit admission of that fact. Now walk away before you further humiliate yourself.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
taxes
June 18, 2009 - 18:47 ET by 2artanis2"Tax relief," "tax cuts." Semantics. Any update on the roofies?
That is not semantics.
June 18, 2009 - 19:27 ET by fitzfongThat is not semantics. That is blatant dishonesty on your part. Wealth transfers to people who do not pay taxes are not tax cuts, tax relief or any other happy spin you wish to put on them. They amount to theft. Period.
Seek your roofies from someone else. I don't deal.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
sigh
June 19, 2009 - 22:01 ET by 2artanis2From USA Today:
"The tax credit would increase the average taxpayer's paycheck by about $8 a week, prompting some to question whether it will do much to stimulate consumer spending. But for a single worker, the credit is the equivalent of a $500 salary increase, after taxes, says Clint Stretch, managing principal for tax policy at Deloitte Tax. "In this economy, if you walked into your boss' office and demanded a $500 raise, you'd probably get laughed at," he says."
That's what the tax cuts in the stimulus bill do. I understand that some people who don't pay taxes will get some tax credits too, just like Bush's stimulus did last year. So you're partly right. Happy?
Now, I want to hear you admit that you made up that crap about Maher and roofies. Don't be a coward and pretend you misunderstood me, with your "I don't deal" nonsense. I want to see a link to something that even remotely suggests Maher used roofies, ever. Otherwise, admit that you completely fabricated that to try and get a rumor started. Your ball.
Keep your pants on about
June 19, 2009 - 23:04 ET by fitzfongKeep your pants on about Maher. No one is starting any rumors about anything. It was tongue-in-cheek speculation and you know it. The fact that you would try to claim otherwise simply proves how desperate you are to grasp even the thinnest shred of cover for your lame and completely debunked excuse for an argument. With that out of the way, let the troll flogging commence...
First of all, you're not making your case any more credible by pulling a quote out of what you claim is a USA Today article without reference to date, author, etc. And once again, those are NOT tax cuts. They are wealth transfers. The fact that the "average" (by the way, that's a significant word) taxpayer sees a couple of bucks more a week does not mean that he is getting a tax cut. When you consider that those who don't pay taxes are getting this "stimulus" money, this means that the money is getting taken from somebody else who is not getting that money (and/or the government is printing the money, devaluing the currency to benefit those who don't pay taxes)...this is called a wealth transfer. Go fish.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
ok
June 20, 2009 - 00:38 ET by 2artanis2What, you think I made up the whole USA Today thing, including the Deloitte tax guy? Whatever, I hear your views on the tax thing. We disagree on the policy. I thought Bush's tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the rich, which is what one might call a wealth transfer. It's all relative.
The reason I pressed on the roofies thing so much is that it didn't sound like tongue-in-cheek anything. You just said it, matter-of-factly, like it's been rumored to be true. If you said "he probably needs roofies just to get anywhere with the girls," or "I bet he uses roofies," that's speculation. And when I questioned why the Playboy mansion was an insult, you specifically clarified that he uses roofies, as if it were something true. So fine, it's a joke. Good one.
Now, let's put all this behind us and be best friends.
We could be friends with people that don't lie.
June 20, 2009 - 01:07 ET by JWFI thought Bush's tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the rich
Of course Bush's tax cuts favor the rich. All tax cuts favor the rich. The rich pay most of the taxes in this country.
If you would bother to stop and listen to fitzfong for 20 seconds, you would hear that half of all wage earners in this country pay no federal taxes. A tax cut would be meaningless to someone that pays no taxes.
The $400 to $800 tax one time tax credit will go to some wage earners (not the rich) that pay taxes AND those half of all wage earners that pay no federal taxes in the first place. THIS IS A TRANSFER OF WEALTH.
Why won't this $400 to $800 go to the rich? It is phased out at $150,000.
So the people that actually pay the taxes in this country get no tax cut. The people that do not pay taxes get a free check.
fitzfong is correct. You have now been corrected. To further your point now would be to lie.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
"taxpayers" -- who are they?
June 20, 2009 - 09:20 ET by lotr"All tax cuts favor the rich. The rich pay most of the taxes in this country.
"If you would bother to stop and listen to fitzfong for 20 seconds, you would hear that half of all wage earners in this country pay no federal taxes. A tax cut would be meaningless to someone that pays no taxes."
Thanks for articulating that JWF. I've been meaning to chime in and say as much. It's one of those falsehoods that the Dems like to prostitute for votes so that they may stay in their elistist positions of governmental power. In this case, the it's "citizen = taxpayer". Not true. Sorry.
It is the upper middle and upper classes that are the taxpayers. They are the ones who pay for the highways, bridges, defense, medicare, education, Congress' salaries, benefits, Obama's and Hillary's secret service, Air Force One, the White House utilities, etc. We should have a national holiday honoring "the rich."
Full disclosure: I am not one of "the rich." But I, like Obama et al., have aspirations. They may not be political aspirations, but they are aspirations all the same. And the political socialist elites won't have that.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
2artanis2, I'm not claiming
June 20, 2009 - 10:27 ET by fitzfong2artanis2, I'm not claiming that you're making up the USA Today thing at all. However, pulling out a paragraph without reference to the entire article (be it a link to the article or a bibliographical citation of the article) can be misleading as it robs the paragraph of its full context.
With regard to income taxes, there are seemingly infinite misconceptions (driven largely by left-wing politicians and even some McCain Republicans). One of those misconceptions is that high income earners are the same as "the rich". Democrats have long used the phrase "tax cuts for the rich" as a misdirection to stir up class resentment. There is no such thing as "tax cuts for the rich". By the common classification, a small business owner who earns $250,000 is considered "rich" even though he's struggling to grow his business and create more jobs. By subjecting him to the punitive "progressive" income tax, the government is leaving less money in his hands to either pass on to the customers as price reductions or to use to hire more employees and generate more tax payers (and more tax revenue to the Treasury). Meanwhile, the idle rich...the ones who are commonly thought to be targeted by "progressive" taxes, feel little, if any effect at all. There's no such thing as a "wealth tax", there's only income tax (not to mention regressive sales and "sin" taxes...taxes that disproportionally hurt the poor)...and income tax only comes due once: upon realization of said income. In effect, provided they don't live above their means, the super rich are always going to be super rich for they can only be taxed from year-to-year on their income. If Paris Hilton earns no income this year, she won't be subjected to an income tax but she'll still be wealthy. In other words, you don't make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
Perhaps I should have been clearer about the Maher thing from the start. Granted, Hef's let more than a few ugly and/or creepy guys pass through the threshhold of his mansion...Norman Mailer and Tom Arnold come to mind...but even Playmates setting standards that low should still leave the likes of Bill Maher on the outside looking in, no?
Anyway, I'm willing to put it behind us if you are. Friends, it is, then.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
enough with the "lie" stuff
June 20, 2009 - 13:59 ET by 2artanis2To those who just joined the comment-a-thon, I'm not "lying"; we just disagree. We're probably not going to convince each other of our respective positions, because you guys lie awake at night worried that the poor are going to take all the rich people's money, and I really don't!
The "rich," whether idle or not, will be just fine. I think the progressive tax is a great idea, and it's so not even near as steeply scaled as it used to be (even under several infamous tax-cutting Republican presidents), so I'm tired of people saying that bringing the top bracket from 35% to 39% is going to make the haves and have-nots switch places in some socialist, Mad Max dystopia. The truth is, we need more revenue to pay for all these bridges (which are falling apart, btw) and airplanes you guys love so much, and not to mention the TWO WARS we're waging "for our very existence."
That's what pisses me off most. And please don't start nitpicking my numbers or calling me a liar. My general point is that fiscal responsibility won't just miraculously happen because you get rid of earmarks. We need more revenue to balance the budget (which a Democrat did) and start paying down the national debt (which a Republican just doubled in eight years). I think it's a travesty that all we've been asked to do for these troops we say we support is buy a freakin' three-dollar magnet for our gas-guzzling, terrorist-funding SUV's. After 9/11, Bush could have said we were going to go all out to win the war on terror -- higher taxes, a draft, and tiny cars that run on AA batteries to starve the evil, oil-pushing Arabs. And if it was really so critical to our freedom and way of life, we would have done it. But no, he cut taxes, put the wars on the credit card, and said "Take that Excursion to the mall and get yourself a flag and a magnet!"
Look, I'm broke, and I pay barely any taxes, but I would be willing to pay more, because as broke as I am, a few hundred bucks isn't going to kick me out of my apartment. And just like Paris Hilton won't feel a tax hike, she won't notice a tax cut either. The rich don't need a national holiday; they can just be glad they live in a country that let them get so rich in the first place and pay their dues. If they don't like it, let them try their luck in one of the other Western countries, where taxes are way higher (for individuals, anyway -- boo hoo for the poor corporations).
Again, unleash the hounds if you want. I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time on this website, but I got sucked in sticking up for Maher. Speaking of which, one more thing. Disagree with him and demonize him all you want, but admit it: that last comment he made about the helicopter and "Wolf" is freakin' hilarious.
→ artenis
June 20, 2009 - 14:09 ET by Cool ArrowWhat you fail to reveal is that the $8 per week (or $500 per year) is nothing but a deferred tax.
The tax tables have not changed! You could've had that $8 per week anytime you wanted it just by changing your number of deductions.
But you'll still settle up according to the same tax table you saw last year.
I'm not calling you a liar, but if this is something you already knew, it sure seems deceptive.
♣
awwww poor little partisan urban hack troll.
June 20, 2009 - 14:11 ET by JWF2 years, you finally make a comment and you get your panties all twisted up because someone spoke back.
Us right-wing Reagan stalkers will wait with baited breath for your next pronouncement in 2011.
Poor broke little soul. Let me give you a music video to perk you up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtAhlPcdh9c
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
On 2nd thought you need more cheering up than that.
June 20, 2009 - 14:36 ET by JWFhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9sEBBCIZ54
Hank will help you out too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URvFvF3Ut3g
Unfortunately, I am no longer allowed to send Millie Jackson your way. But I am sure you can find it yourself.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
nice
June 20, 2009 - 14:36 ET by 2artanis2Wow, I hope these things don't get indented any farther. This site is far enough to the right! (Rim shot. Crickets.)
I love how JWF squeezed "partisan" into his subject that was full of insults. Yeah, you're really reaching across the aisle with that post of yours. It's called irony. Look into it.
Oh, and I'm not asking for your freakin' sympathy. I used to make lots of money as a software consultant, then I quit to go be a lounge singer in Vegas, which isn't as lucrative yet, but it's a lot more fun. So I'm broke by choice, douche. If you don't want to join the debate like my new friend fitzfong and others, just read along and let the grownups talk.
Yes. We know you are a lounge singer.
June 20, 2009 - 14:44 ET by JWFWe also know you suck. You should know it too. Your first clue - all those guys screaming you suck every time you get on stage.
Why don't you share some more personal info goob.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
whoa
June 20, 2009 - 14:55 ET by 2artanis2So sorry about the personal info. Didn't know commenting on this site was like being in "Reservoir Dogs."
Sure you're not "a Veteran of 1,000 psych wards"? Seriously, dude, get a grip.
Ah, the infamous "dude" pops out.
June 21, 2009 - 06:17 ET by JWFWe are truly dealing with a man of class now. Right, lounge singer? I have the collected speaches of 14 Presidents and 1237 Representives, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices. In addition to numerous speaches of other famous men in history.
Let me check...... No, No, not a one of them uttered the word dude.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
→ Bloody Stump
June 20, 2009 - 14:57 ET by Cool ArrowSuppose Democrats reach across the aisle and abolish Welfare?
Suppose Democrats reach across the aisle and abolish forced funding of black genocide?
Suppose Democrats reach across the aisle and stop this foolish enslavement of our children?
Dirty little secret is that Democrats haven't "reached across the aisle" since Clinton and Gingrich put a halt to perpetual Welfare, and Obama is sworn to reestablish that too.
But have you seen Obama reach up his nose and eat a booger?
RO... ...and they
June 20, 2009 - 14:59 ET by bigtimerRO...
...and they will...progammatically.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
→ Right, bt
June 20, 2009 - 15:03 ET by Cool ArrowIf it were just a matter of reparations, the trillions spent in that War on Poverty would have covered it several times over.
♣
ha
June 20, 2009 - 15:28 ET by 2artanis2the booger thing is actually pretty funny
The "rich," whether idle or
June 20, 2009 - 15:51 ET by fitzfongThe "rich," whether idle or not, will be just fine. I think the progressive tax is a great idea, and it's so not even near as steeply scaled as it used to be (even under several infamous tax-cutting Republican presidents), so I'm tired of people saying that bringing the top bracket from 35% to 39% is going to make the haves and have-nots switch places in some socialist, Mad Max dystopia. The truth is, we need more revenue to pay for all these bridges (which are falling apart, btw) and airplanes you guys love so much, and not to mention the TWO WARS we're waging "for our very existence."
The fact that infrastructure in many parts of the country is obsolete is not down to a lack of tax revenue. Tax rate cuts have proven time-and-time again to increase tax revenues to the Treasury. The problem is that Congress chooses to spend the revenue excessively and poorly. When you raid funds from a designated fund (like highways, bridges, etc.) to transfer to the general fund to underwrite bloated spending on "social services", you create the deficits...in other words, the tax rate cuts do not cause the deficit, the wasteful spending does.
Look, I'm broke, and I pay barely any taxes, but I would be willing to pay more, because as broke as I am, a few hundred bucks isn't going to kick me out of my apartment. And just like Paris Hilton won't feel a tax hike, she won't notice a tax cut either. The rich don't need a national holiday; they can just be glad they live in a country that let them get so rich in the first place and pay their dues. If they don't like it, let them try their luck in one of the other Western countries, where taxes are way higher (for individuals, anyway -- boo hoo for the poor corporations).
Paris Hilton may not feel a tax hike, but you can bet that the midwestern mom-and-pops that barely stay afloat even though they're classified in the same tax bracket as the "super rich" will. Bottom line: businesses are not in business to create jobs or hand out healthcare. They are in business to deliver products and services at the best cost to meet consumer demand. To the extent that they succeed at their mission, they will need and can afford to hire people...and provide for a significant portion of their healthcare to remain competitive. The more businesses are weighed down with costs, the more difficult it becomes for them to hire people...and to deliver the services to the public at affordable rates. At the end of the day, you can mock the corporations for attempting to remain profitable in the face of punitive tax increases...but they are not in business to support the federal government. If an arrogant federal government takes your "good luck finding a better business climate in Western Europe" attitude, you can bet the corporations you sneer at will. As with Ireland in the 1990s, all it takes is a competitive tax base to attract corporations to set up shop in your country. If our Federal Government continues to create a hostile environment through taxes and regulation for American companies, those American companies will either move their headquarters to more competitive business climates or they will fold under the weight of the government parasite. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
thanks
June 23, 2009 - 12:50 ET by 2artanis2You make some really interesting points. I'm sure we still disagree on some broad things, like the notion of "rich" and how much taxes people should be willing to pay in relation to the government services they expect, but I like reading specific, nuanced arguments rather than the meaningless "Taxes bad! Government good!" nonsense that goes on in most of the mainstream media.
Cheers, 2artanis2. I've
June 23, 2009 - 14:01 ET by fitzfongCheers, 2artanis2. I've enjoyed the discussion, especially the last several posts. Reasonable people can disagree...and I have learned to my benefit that it's helpful to engage people who are often ideologically opposed to your positions. I have been lucky enough to have had some good exchanges with many who would be classified as the more "liberal" posters (Jer, JasonC, shawn228, balboa, thecurator). All of them have weathered a fair amount of abuse (some fair, some unfair) but have stood their ground and continue to make this site a lot more interesting. I've often learned a lot more about myself and about my beliefs from having them tested by those with different points-of-view...the mental exercise often strengthens your beliefs and your arguments because you're usually forced to consider points you've never encountered before and you have to navigate around different obstacles. It can be a lot of fun, so hang in there.
By the way, best of luck with your singing career. Pursuing your passion can be a financial struggle, especially in these times. But people like you who put themselves out there to do what they love and what they feel they're best at deserve to succeed.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
.
June 18, 2009 - 16:21 ET by 2artanis2.
Looks like you are down to your last long time account syrius.
June 21, 2009 - 09:51 ET by JWFOr protocol9 or ubercon or guttermouth or williams411 or whatever that james bond villian account was.
You just don't get how stupid you are. And you underestimate how smart the rest of the planet is.
Any user anywhere on any site that has been registered for any amount of time does not jump in and insult contributors and commenters on his very first post.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
shouldn't even waste my time, but too late now
June 23, 2009 - 13:07 ET by 2artanis2You are an absolute clown. And you are terrible at this insult game.
In no particular order:
None of the fake usernames you just listed for me were anywhere close to my username, or insulting. The James Bond thing doesn't even make sense. Read my post again, and notice how it's just like your little quote, but I've changed the words ever so slightly to comic effect.
Next, saying I'm not to be taken seriously because I use the word "dude" is ridiculous, and comparing me to former Presidents is a bit of a high bar to set, no? Oh, and FYI, your telling people they "suck" and calling people "goob" isn't exactly JFK-ish either.
Also, you have not heard me sing, so you don't know if I sing well or not. In my opinion, I'm quite good. Now, if this were a singing blog, with audio clips of recorded, sung comments, maybe you could say my singing sucks, just like I can tell your ideas and logic suck by reading your written comments.
Finally, I think I was decently measured in my first post. I asserted that merely reporting what somebody said on TV is not "analysis." It's at best dull reporting, and more like simply transcribing or somewhat summarizing. I also said I thought Bill Maher was right about what he said, I made some predictions about the fate of the Republican party, and I made some comments about taxes, which actually opened up a back-and-forth that turned into a nice little debate. I didn't make ad hominem attacks (or any nasty ones, anyway) and stuck to the subject of the "analyst's" article, which is much more than I can say for the other comments on this page.