Who's Dumb? Andrew Sullivan Says Tax ‘Revenues Currently Are At 50 Year Lows’
The more one listens to Newsweek’s Andrew Sullivan, the more one has to conclude that he either knows absolutely nothing about the economy or he’s lying through his teeth.
Appearing on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 Wednesday evening, Sullivan actually said tax “revenues currently are at 50 year lows” (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
Cooper invited Sullivan and Bay Buchanan on to discuss the former's much-maligned Newsweek cover story ironically titled "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" Towards the end of the segment, Buchanan addressed the piles of debt created by the current administration.
“He only ran it up, Bay, because in a recession, your revenues collapse, and revenues currently are at 50 year lows,” Sullivan absurdly stated in defense of the president he adores.
“The hard thing is to run a deficit in boom times," he continued. "That’s what your party did adding $5 trillion to the debt under Bush. Five trillion. Even the most expansive understanding of what Obama will have brought bring it to something like one trillion extra debt. I think that’s too much, too, but compared to Bush, this guy is a fiscal conservative.”
Obama's "a fiscal conservative?"
Let's start with tax revenues. According to the Office of Management and Budget, they totaled $2.567 trillion in 2011. In 1961, they were $94.4 billion.
In what world is 2.567 trillion equal to 94.4 billion?
Assuming Sullivan was talking about inflation adjusted dollars, $94.4 billion in 1961 is equal to $714 billion in 2011. That means adjusted for inflation, tax revenues today are 3.5 times what they were 50 years ago.
3.5 times.
Just in case Sullivan was talking about on-budget revenues - meaning not including Social Security and Medicare - those were $1.9 trillion in 2011 or three times 1961's inflation adjusted receipts of $82.3 billion.
No matter how you slice it, this statement by Sullivan would garner more Pinocchios than Geppetto could make in several lifetimes.
As for Sullivan's claim, "Even the most expansive understanding of what Obama will have brought bring it to something like one trillion extra debt," this, too, is sheer stupidity.
According to TreasuryDirect.gov, our total federal debt has grown by $4.6 trillion since Inauguration Day 2009. OMB predicts deficits of $828 billion, $727 billion, $706 billion, and $752 billion the next four fiscal years.
As such, Sullivan's statement that Obama will only add "one trillion extra debt" is lunacy.
Once again, there are only two possible conclusions to draw from the nonsense Sullivan uttered on CNN Wednesday evening. Either he knows absolutely nothing about economic data, or he's lying through his teeth.
Whatever the case, it is quite clear Sullivan's opinions are totally skewed by his admitted support for this president, have absolutely no basis in fact, and should therefore be completely ignored.
Who's "dumb" now?
Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
He is both an idiot and a liar, ie "bush had boom times" Huh?
Submitted by merly1 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:44am.
Bush's 8 year run both started in a recession, AND ended in a recession. Does anybody deny this?
Obviously, Sullivan is a moron. Additionally, Bush had the corporate accting scandal in 2002, the first Fannie
accting scandal in 2004, and a Senate that didnt pass Fannie reform in 2005.
And yes, the denial of Owebama's 4.6 T in new debt, almost all of it publicly borrowed, should qualify
this guy for the padded room, not TV commentary.
I think this clown not only
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:53am.
I think this clown not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but he IS lying through his teeth - and I think it's possible to do both - especially with these idiots.
And although his claims have been refuted, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if tax revenues ARE down - given the status of our economy, the number of people NOT paying taxes, the unemployment situation, the business climate, and the rest of the negative factors that add up to (or do NOT add up to) the current grim situation that we have in our country. Plus, even though the government workers (fed, state, local) DO 'pay taxes'...........those taxes are actually paid for 'on the backs' of the private sector-in large part - because they are public empoyees...................so that's another wrinkle in this whole tax conversation.
At the risk of sounding 'un-American', I'm doing as MUCH business as possible these days (and it really doesn't add up to very much) on a 'cash only ' basis, because I've spent too much and seen to much of my own taxes being wasted, squandered, laundered, bribed, paid, and given away to all sorts of people, organizations, and programs that have NOTHING to do with me, or our Constitution, or helping our country. And it's quadrupled - on steriods - since the Obama REGIME took over.
And isn't this the same HIV-positive faggot who just wrote that Obama critics were 'dumb'????
Sullivan was just enamored of his host,
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:52am.
he can't be expected to have his facts right, when he's more concerned with what they'll be doing after the show. Maybe AC invited him up to his new $1.7 Million dollar home to look at the etchings? Or to dance the night away?
The other possibilty? He's just another in a long line of media, lying shills for the DNC and the poser in the WH.
. . . during Bush -- boom times?
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 1:12am.
Well, gee Andrew -- following the recession (fallout from the Enron boom times that crashed in March, 2000) that Bush inherited, and the fallout from the attacks of 9/11, only 9 months into his first year, one might recall that the recovery from all of that was a bit trying for a few years.
Not to mention that, as you noted for the following cycle, "revenues collapsed," as Bush came to office. Where's your friggin sympathy over that?
If you have any doubt, then go back and check out the national MSM coverage of how slow and painful the recovery was.
Yea - OK, there was a bit of a solid run from 2004 through 2007, but mostly because of the Bush tax cuts and the housing bubble that Clinton did hand him, but who in their right mind was about to "cum in their pants," over that economic cycle?
Jus asking,
(;~/ gary
⇒ 50 yr lows
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 1:59am.
Of course taxes are at a 50 yr low. What does he expect when President Ofoodstamp has worked so hard to roll back the Clinton Era Welfare Reform legislation and herd Americans into every sort of government dependency imaginable. Not mentioned as a giant contributor to this 50 yr low is that more Americans than ever qualify for refunds beyond taxes paid.
On "The Five" today, Bob Beckel actually was apologetic for his Party's creating a culture of dependency 30 years ago. I know he's off by a couple of decades since it was LBJ, but I was absolutely stunned by Beckel's honesty and seeming contrition. If it's available online, I suggest you watch it.
Let's take a look at Obama and Biden's #1 economic adviser, Jon Corzine. Corzine is being sued by American farmers for his part in bilking them of their seed money this year. We should be prepared for yet another bailout here since President Ofoodstamp can't afford prolonged exposure as a champion of big money Madoff schemes. A bailout shows Ofoodstamp as a benevolent fixer when he's really a very big part of the corruption.
Same Alinsky plan...
Submitted by adamsmith on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 7:55am.
Obama is simply implementing the same plan that the Communists used in NYC in the '70's They put as many on the city welfare rolls as possible to collapse NYC's economy. They were largely successful, and it took a fiscal conservative like Giuliani to pull it out of the slime. Obama is simply doing this on a national level, destroying the economy is key to implementing State Control over everything and everyone.Yeah, Obama's the One we've all been waiting for, to lose reelection that is....this Commie can't be out quick enough. The only thing I wonder is how Republicans have allowed this Usurper to get away with all he's done and doing. I thought we had checks and balances to prevent an elected lunatic from destroying our nation.
We're supposed to
Submitted by Bliggie on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 8:49am.
The problem isn't just obama and the communist democrat party, it's the main stream media for not doing their job, it's pop culture, movies music etc., that make it seem that you're not "cool" if you're not communist, and thirdly, the public education system which doesn't educate anymore it brainwashes children from a very young age to be communist and to hate Christians. That is why you get things like the kids math teacher talking about bush and republicans, shut up and teach. Our kids love Obama but can't spell or count. Until these things change our country will head in the wrong direction.
⇒ You've got to see this!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 2:46am.
Here is Bob Beckel's admission that creating a culture of dependency was a mistake liberals made.
Today on "The Five"
Actually...
Submitted by fenngibbon on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 2:55am.
I think Sullivan might have been talking about tax revenues as a percent of GDP, because those are at 50 year lows.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
That doesn't change the fact that he's a complete idiot on the debt.
Yes, that's what I thought
Submitted by trak65 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 3:42am.
Yes, that's what I thought too. Percent of GDP is not a flawless metric but it's a favorite of the left (if GDP grows at 5% and spending grows at 3% -- that's a "cut" in spending for them!). During the Clinton years the peak revenue was 20.9% of GDP in 2000; the peak under Bush was 18.8% in 2007. Spending highs were 21.0% in 1994 and 20.7% in 2008.
For 15 years we were in a band of 18%-21% for both -- since 2009 we have been at 15% revenue and 25% spending.
Also, I think it's useful to look not only at who was president but also which party controlled the House and thus the pursestrings.
Actually, that's not what he's talking about.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:03pm.
Actually, he's talking about total collected tax revenues, not some percentage of a given category. You see, no category was given, other than collected revenue.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
fen
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:39pm.
fen,
If he's talking about as a percentage of GDP, 2011's 14.4 is the lowest since 1950's 14.4 which is 61 years ago. So, he'd be wrong on that as well.
Regardless, he didn't say as a percentage of GDP. He said lowest. If he responds with this nonsense, to paraphrase Monty Python, I will taunt him once again. ns
I don't want to talk to you
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 1:13pm.
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
I think this taunt will work best Noel. Of course in his case most of the stuff mentioned is true. :-)
Scuba
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 1:46pm.
Scuba,
I'm armed to the teeth. ns
Sloppy reporting? Please take a look in the mirror!
Submitted by mflo999 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 5:46am.
Mr Sheppard, I bet you even KNOW that Sullivan was referring to tax revenues AS A PERCENTAGE OF PERSONAL INCOME, which is at a 60 year historic low of 8.8%. Don't take my word for it, read the reporting easily found on Google. This is not a phony measure: it means that each of us is paying less out of our pocket than Americans did throughout our most prosperous times.
Your post was nothing more than red meat to your very excitable readers -- most of them eager to show off their latest screamingly o'funny riff on Obama's name.
At least you didn't hit the guy who always writes in "Sullivan?? Never heard of the guy until today! Who reads him anyway?" Oh oh ... I think I hear him waking up ...
How can he know troll?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 6:54am.
Sullivan did not specify. He threw out a little "red meat for his very excitable readers (look in mirror)". A decent reporter wouldn't need his fans (look in mirror) doing the google searches to justify something he could have just said. He would still be wrong as he said "50 year low" and you are giving us something you claim is at a 60 year low. Wouldn't he have known that if it was so easy to google?
Looks like he was talking
Submitted by cathartic1 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:13am.
Looks like he was talking about this:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-05-05-tax-cut-record-low_n.htm
cath
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:51pm.
cath,
No, because he/she was referring to a number of 8.8 percent. This piece refers to 23.6 percent and is referring to "total tax burden" meaning including payroll, state, local, etc. Not the same issue. ns
Reporting What?
Submitted by desert3030 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 9:21am.
What has cost the taxpayers more: Romeny & Bain or Green Loans & Obama?
Where can I find what 99%'s attended the Chicago dinner at $35,000.00 per person?
Yet another sleeper account
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 9:50am.
Yet another sleeper account has been activated. A member for almost 2 years and the first of 4 posts made only 2 weeks ago.
Go away troll.
I really wish NewsBusters would start deleting inactive accounts. We would see a massive kill off in the troll population, which is a good thing.
Sullivan?? Never heard of the
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 9:58am.
Sullivan?? Never heard of the guy until today! Who reads him anyway?
And who told you that?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:02pm.
"Mr Sheppard, I bet you even KNOW that Sullivan was referring to tax revenues AS A PERCENTAGE OF PERSONAL INCOME, which is at a 60 year historic low of 8.8%."
And who told you that? Sullivan never mentioned it. He claimed that tax revenues were at historic lows, not that a certain percentage based upon a given category was at historic lows. In other words, you're making claims at to what Sullivan "meant" as opposed to what Sullivan actually said.
What do you think "revenues currently are at 50 year lows" means, anyways? It means that the total amount of tax dollars collected are at 50 year lows, with, of course, they're not!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I can help, I speak troll-ese
Submitted by jpwcpa on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 4:05pm.
In much the same way that liberals are able to discern racially-tinged "code words" hidden deep within the innocuous remarks of Republican presidential candidates, they are also able to find context and specificity hidden deep within the vague remarks made by fellow liberals. Because "tax revenues as a percentage of personal income" supports the point made by Mr. Sullivan (despite the fact that "as a percentage of personal income" was never uttered by Mr. Sullivan), then from the viewpoint of trolls the only possible way to interpret Mr. Sullivan's remarks is to add in the "as a percentage of personal income" on his behalf.
mflo
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:45pm.
mflo,
If it's so easy to find what Sullivan was talking about via Google, enlighten all of us by sharing a link to such data. I'm breathless with antici.........pation. ns
Geeze, thanks!
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 1:02pm.
"antici.........pation"
Geeze, thanks, now that Catchup commercial will be stuck in my head all day! Heh.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
geeze, thanks Cobra
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 1:14pm.
Thinking about ketchup got the scene from Rocky Horror out of my head.
Sorry...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 1:52pm.
Let me offer this as an act of contrition.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
⇒ Cobra
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 1:59pm.
Don't make me throw in Whitney Houston with "I will always love you" Aroooo - Aroooo
They're just having a party!
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 2:00pm.
Hay, this isn't the Junior Chambers of Commerce, Cool!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
That's the one I was thinking of, too, Agnostic
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 4:17pm.
It's an old NS joke, but I don't think he was talking about Dr. FrankNFurter either.
He hasn't played that one in such a long time I actually forget. Imagine that.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Ole Cleve up there
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 9:14am.
(I'm guessing) - actually a decent guy in other conversations I've had with him but he'll argue against his own points as long as in the end he can point at Conservatives +/or Republicans as the problem. Doing the 'mind warp' again.
JJ
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 6:35pm.
JJ,
Of course it's FranknFurter. "I can hear you shiver...I'll remove the cause, but not the symptom." :-) ns
Intentionally vague
Submitted by GRPruitt on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 7:25am.
Libs use the word "Taxes" to refer to actual tax payments and average rates. They also never compare the average rate of wealthy and middle class taxpayers. A tax rate might be 28%, but that is before deductions reduce the average rate. The fact interviewers do not make anyone - including themselves - use specific terms only adds to the confusion.
give the guy a break
Submitted by Tyler520 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:23am.
Come on now...
It isn't kind to make fun of people who are mentally retarded
It's Andy Sullivan
Submitted by John21 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:12pm.
It’s Andy Sullivan he hasn't had a coherent thought this decade. He probably was unaware of his location due to his substance abuse or mental health problems.
Anyone who has followed his inputs for the last 10-15 years has seen the slow degrading of his mental facilities. He was once a highly thought of coherent and logical writer but as the years go by you can see him losing those capabilities. Go to one of his articles from 1999 and compare it to the Newsweek article the downward spiral is extremely evident. I hope Andy Sullivan realizes his problems and receives the help he so desperately needs and soon. His credibility has been lost due to his illness and the far left media has used his condition badly.
Sullivan
Submitted by mmilesll on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:25pm.
If you will note-his hair has fallen from the top of his head to his face. So we now know what happened to his brain.
Free speech
Submitted by angelann1 on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 1:03pm.
Whenever liberals speak ,they show their ignorance and dishonesty ! Let them speak !!
What Party Is Sullivan Affiliated With?
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 6:07pm.
Admission Sullivan is not a Conservative or even a Republican.
Sullivan is a fraud.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 1:24am.
And your point about his acute HIV delirium is well taken.
I am unable to find any reference to Sullivan writing anything positive about conservatives or Republicans since 2000. Notwithstanding his weak support for the post-911 actions, in general he has proven out to be just another prototypical liberal Eurofreak who hates the existence of the United States. Why he does, I don't know. He certainly could not make the same amount of money or enjoy the same popularity in Europe as he does in the US. In the UK, he would be just another stereotypical liberal with no original ideas or contributions other than an occasional moment of publicity for saying something disgusting about the Queen.
Fraud Indeed
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 3:14pm.
How disappointed he must be to finally fulfill his desire to emigrate to America and become a permanent resident only to be so conflicted in his opinions once here. The guy is a train wreck in progress.
Sullivan is a Conservative in the same fashion that Obama believes marriage is only for heterosexuals. It's a deception that the Left understand and therefore offer no substantive opposition. Sullivan is a darling on the Leftist cocktail circuit because he is a joke played on Conservatives. Wink, wink. Nod, nod.
⇒ No way, strat
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 3:24pm.
Sullivan is the left's HIV-infected, "conservative" work-in-progress, pet.
Liberals long for the day he succums (wow! there's a doubly-loaded word for an end to his malady) to his disease so they can display how inclusive they were to a "conservative".
Au Contraire, CA
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:21pm.
We do not disagree. It's PSYOPs on the American people.
Whether Sullivan currently recognizes he's not Conservative, the Left knows Sullivan is no Conservative, hence the warm reception he receives, and use the description, and him, to pervert public consciousness.