What Are Our Favorite Republicans Up To?
Talking Points Memo caught Michael Steele in a Q&A at the National Press Club where he admitted he didn’t know the basics of the healthcare debate.
In a Q&A at the National Press Club just now, Steele was asked if Republicans support an individual requirement to get health care (also known as an individual mandate).
“What do you mean by an individual requirement?” he asked the moderator. After she explained, he dodged the question.
“Again, that is one of those areas where there is different opinions…I don’t do policy,” he said. “My point in coming here today was to begin to set a tone, and a theme if you will.”
In the ongoing chapters of Mark Sanford’s delusions of grandeur, he wrote an op-ed for his home state paper, The State.
It is true that I did wrong and failed at the largest of levels, but equally true is the fact that God can make good of our respective wrongs in life. In this vein, while none of us has the chance to attend our own funeral, in many ways I feel like I was at my own in the past weeks, and surprisingly I am thankful for the perspective it has afforded.
So, is he Abraham or Moses this time? Mark Sanford just can’t shut up, can he?
For a change of pace, a former head of the NRCC repudiates the Bush doctrine:
Rep. Tom Cole, in a candid new assessment of the state of the Republican Party, says the GOP lost its majorities in the House and Senate because of the Iraq war and calls for the party to abandon former President George W. Bush’s doctrine of unprovoked aggression….
“Experience suggests that the Bush doctrine of ‘pre-emptive’ war is ill-suited to America’s values, traditions and democratic institutions. It ought to be discarded.”
Tags: Mark Sanford, Michael Steele, Republican Crazy, Tom Cole
TPM caught Steele in quite a vamp there, while he tried to think of something to say. Which is even more remarkable since you’d think he got his job on his ability to make stuff up.
Trickle Down Works Both Ways, GOP Was Correct, Dems Wrong
HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN
In a new study, economists Jonathan Parker and Annette Vissing-Jorgensen of Northwestern University find that — contrary to conventional wisdom — income losses in recessions are proportionately greater for the well-to-do than for middle-income households.
By their estimates, the relative income loss for the top 10 percent of the population is 26 percent larger than for the average household.
For the top 1 percent, the contrast is even starker.
Their proportionate loss is more than double — that is, if the average household had an income loss of 10 percent, the top 1 percent would lose more than 20 percent.
“Trickle-down economics” is a despised phrase and concept to many, but it also embodies a harsh reality: The rich often play a pivotal role in U.S. economic growth, and if they are enfeebled, then the consequences are widespread, says columnist Robert J. Samuelson. Consider:
Consumption spending, the economy’s main engine, is skewed toward the upper classes, because they have most of the income.
In 2009, households with more than $200,000 in income account for 3.4 percent of the total but will generate almost 14 percent of consumer spending, estimates economist Sterne.
Households with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 represent about 14 percent of the population and 34 percent of spending.
Together, these groups generate nearly half of U.S. consumption, although they’re only a sixth of the population.
Similarly, the rich pay most of the taxes, says Samuelson:
In 2006, the richest 1 percent paid 28 percent of all federal taxes, estimates the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The richest 10 percent (including the top 1 percent) paid 55 percent.
The system is progressive — that is, the richer people get, the more of their income they pay in taxes; in 2006, the effective rate for the top 1 percent was 31 percent, reflecting all federal taxes.
By contrast, the poorest fifth paid an effective rate of 4 percent (state and local taxes are less progressive, because they rely more heavily on regressive sales taxes).
Source: Robert J. Samuelson, “How the Mighty have Fallen,” Newsweek, July 11, 2009.
So, is this fool actually here (violating any fair use principles here) actually cheering on the fact that people — of any class — are losing money?
Guess this solves the puzzle as to why Mr. Shallow Bench could never raise any money.