Wednesday Open Thread [6.20.12]
The lies of the lying liar named Willard Mittens Romney, pathological liar extraordinaire, are so legion and numerous that we can fill every open thread from now until the election and have room to spare, only going on what he has said so far in the campaign. So that is exactly what we are going to do.
“A book that was written in a way that’s apparently pro-President Obama, was written by a guy named Noam Scheiber and in this book he says that there was a discussion about the fact that Obamacare would slow down the economic recovery in this country and they knew that before they passed it. But they concluded that we would all forget how long the recovery took once it had happened, so they decided to go ahead. The idea that they knowingly slowed down our recovery in order to put in place Obamacare, which they wanted and they considered historic but the American people did not want or consider historic, is something which I think deserves a lot of explaining, because I think the President’s responsibility is to put people back to work. To get people out of poverty and to help people have good jobs and have prospects for a brighter tomorrow.” — Willard Mittens Romney.
First, and most importantly, at no point did anybody in the Obama administration ever believe that passing the Affordable Care Act would “slow down the recovery.” Nothing close to that is ever described. Romney presents the book as revealing that Obama believed health-care reform, through its “big gummint” regulations, would harm the recovery, but cackling that he wanted to pass it out of some belief that Americans wouldn’t notice mass economic suffering. This bears no relationship to anything the book says.
In the book, Noam Scheiber asked Larry Summers if he believed that the decision to pass health-care reform cost Obama the chance to pass a second stimulus, and thus came at the cost of a faster recovery. Summers answered that he did not think the health-care law prevented a second stimulus, but that even if that were the case, he would have supported it anyway.
Not only is it false for Romney to say Obama “knowingly slowed down our recovery,” it’s not even true that Obama knowingly passed up a chance to accelerate the recovery. The notion that anybody in the administration believed that the health-care law would actually slow down the recovery is complete fiction. It does not appear in the book anywhere and it’s pretty obviously untrue.
What’s more, the notion that the book is “pro-President Obama,” and hence some damning indictment that slipped into a laudatory account, is also wrong. You don’t have to read the book to know this. You don’t even need to listen to my account (I have read it). All you need to do is read all the way to the book’s subtitle: “How Obama’s Team Fumbled the Recovery.” That is not the subtitle of a laudatory book.
The rich guy is virtuous and good. It is axiomatic. If he is caught lying then the lie was to facilitate some good outcome. Duh.
It’s all just an elaborate dance for Romney, one worthy of his Olympic Dressage horse. Dance to the right, dance to the left, dance wherever his advisors tell him to dance, so that he can win a big prize in the end. But Mitt Romney’s dangling carrot is to lower his own taxes at our expense, to the tune of a trillion dollars for the wealthiest 0.1%.
Like all good lies, it contains a grain of truth, but one that will escape wingnuts.
You only get one shot at passing bills under reconciliation each year, and Obama chose to spend his shot on health care rather than his tax plan. By focusing on health care, Obama incurred an opportunity cost by passing up his chance to pass his tax plan (expiring tax cuts for rich).
I guess in his view that was no dilemma, since he knew he didn’t intend to pass his tax plan anyway.
But had Obama used his shot at reconciliation to pass his campaign tax plan instead of health care, we would likely be experiencing a recovery and job growth now, instead of wondering if Obama will lose this election over unemployment and deficits.
Of course that would have left the health care battle still to be fought, but at least we would be fighting it with a sound economy at our backs, rather than chronically teetering on the brink of depression and electoral loss.
And you know what? It looks like we are going to be re-fighting health care anyway. So with hindsight, it would have been far better to use reconciliation to pass the tax plan instead.
Oooooh!!!! Looks like Willard’s going to Hell! 😈
See, if you play the game and force the rational among us to play along with your game (because otherwise your fee-fees get bruised) then you have to adhere to the rules of your made-up game…which means that the liar Mitt will have to admit, when confronted with his documented lies, that he is, indeed, going to Hell.
You still go to Hell for habitual lying, right? It’s been awhile since I played the game…
Yes.
When I see Mittens and watch his assmouth move, all I can think about is this lyric….
He’s a friend of that cloven-hoofed gangster, the Devil.
Thanks, DD! 🙂
Already 1:30 and no craziness out of Sussex. Harumphf.
Oh there is plenty craziness to come and tis just getting started
trust em……………
seems the sheriff has bit offmore than he can chew and ran his mouth a little too much
and a certain blogger has made some veiled threats to unmask certain local politicians
hang oon!!
Puck: I’m not sure you fully understand the value of the tax cuts for the top 2%.
If the rates were raised only on that group, it would raise about $80 billion annually — not enough to make any real difference in our level of debt. It serves more purpose, in the Democratic Party mind, as a constant reminder to everyone else that the GOP’s top priority is lining the pockets of the rich.
Raising that rate by executive decision takes away the only political reason to push for it — to force Republicans to betray their base, as the Democrats betray us when they agree to cut entitlements.
Geezer, stop thinking like such a Republican. I’m not just looking at how the expiration of the top marginal rate on the rich would directly collect more revenue – that’s the least of it. I’m looking at how it would change business behavior to raise the incentive for hiring and investment, by providing more motivation for tax avoidance strategies.
Everybody wants to talk about the top marginal rate, but the biggest disaster of the Bush cuts was the investment taxes. I’d be happy to let the rich have their Bush 36% top rate if the investment taxes went back to Clinton levels.
Obama’s 2008 proposal (his version of expiration):
– Raise top marginal rate from 36% to 39%
– Raise capital gains tax from 15% to 20%
– Raise dividend tax from 20% to 25%
Obama’s 2012 proposal (full expiration to pre-2001 rates):
– Raise top marginal rate from 36% to 39%
– Raise capital gains tax from 15% to 20%
– Raise dividends tax from 15% to 39% (treat as regular income)
This of course does not account for the December surprise, or the middle-class rates.
I’ve lost track of the estate tax and carried interest loopholes, but they’re in there somewhere too.
On top of that, throw in the real value of showing the financial world we are finally serious about dealing with our deficits.
Correction: Obama 2008 proposal was raise dividend taxes from 15% to 20%, same as capital gains.
Jason….. put your money on a leak of the “Georgetown Bin Laden’s” RWNJ name in the immediate future:)
But had Obama used his shot at reconciliation to pass his campaign tax plan instead of health care, we would likely be experiencing a recovery and job growth now, instead of wondering if Obama will lose this election over unemployment and deficits.
First, if Obama had passed the tax plan instead of health care, we would have been treated to you being bitterly betrayed because he broke his promise on health care.
Second, if the tax plan had been passed, it is still unlikely that the economy would be much different than it is now. With the exception that we’d be less in debt. But since this recession is still a demand recession, there is nothing about tax increases that does anything about that demand.
First, if Obama had passed the tax plan instead of health care, we would have been treated to you being bitterly betrayed because he broke his promise on health care.
Well guess what – by the end of this month we will have neither, and the economy will still be tanking. Helluva way to go into an election.
You’re missing the point that higher investment taxes (especially treating dividends as regular income) would provide more incentive for businesses to avoid those taxes by hiring new employees. And then those employees would provide demand.
At 15% Bush tax rates, any stimulus spending will just promptly be drained out of the middle class into the pockets of the rich, and stay there with no reason to hire or invest. Raising the upper income and investment taxes will plug the hole in the bucket so the demand sticks around for a while and has the intended effect.
provide more incentive for businesses to avoid those taxes by hiring new employees. And then those employees would provide demand.
This is not the way it works. Certainly not on the scale needed. The first, second, and third thing businesses need is demand. People who cross their doorstep to buy stuff.
Businesses who can are already investing in better equipment and processes so that they can ramp up with way fewer employees when demand returns. Besides, it is cheap to modernize right now. Everyone else is waiting for customers.
Any stimulus money now will be spent once by some middle class person to put gas in their car, and then will be paid out as dividends to Mitt Romney who will pay 13% tax on it. If the local workers are lucky, Mitt might spend some of it on massages for his dancing horse.
Now if dividends were taxed at 39%, investors might just tell the oil company “Hold on there – instead of paying us that dividend, why not just let the money ride and use it to grow the company. We’ll take our cut later as capital gains at 20%. So start planning to be bigger and stronger in the next three to five years, not just the next quarter.”
You can’t grow anything if you don’t have enough customers to justify that growth.
GE has plenty of money on the books. They aren’t going to staff up or gear up for anything if they don’t have a reasonable expectation that they’ll have customers for whatever they are staffing up for — tax policy or no.
They can’t justify growth as long as they have the option to suck cash out of the company at 15% tax rates. But staffing up will sound a lot better when dividends are taxed at 39% instead of 15%.
You make a fair point though about demand. What do you think can create demand? Democrats don’t know how to design a stimulus, and Republicans won’t vote for one.
Besides, I’m not sure there are enough middle-class consumers left to spark a self-sustaining recovery with any amount of stimulus. Only well-paying jobs can do that.
Am I the last person in the world to see this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/robin-hood-tax-mark-ruffalo_n_1610079.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Demand is created by people with money to spend. There isn’t much magic about creating demand — people need to feel secure enough to spend. The other side of it is to produce enough that other people want to buy. Republicans aren’t interested in the economy recovering, just in funneling the Treasury into the pockets of their rich friends. And Democrats have been too complicit to be an effective critic of the GOP tactics.
DelawareLiberal.net provides a necessary window into the politics of Delaware, D.C., batshit crazy red states and the opinions from everyone interested. The insightful posts and responses often lead me to believe that Delawareans are as politically astute as, say, any state not Alabama, because they appear to be dumber than dirt. Not as offensive as the vatican, maybe Mississippi, but there’s always Sussex. Before I shut down for vacation, I’d like to thank all of those that make this website possible, it’s kind of a necessary evil, isn’t it? I thank you for your work, for not banning me and allowing me to say things like CRI is a fascist organization, Evan is a pussy and Rick Jenson lives, in spite of my prediction a few months ago. Delaware Liberal, I love you. I’ll miss you. Please offend someone for me. Seacrest OUT
I ❤ Joe Cass.
Enjoy your vacation!
SUSSEX COUNTY PERSONNEL BOARD HAS UPHELD THE TERMINATION OF DEPUTY TORRES
AND WHAT WAS SAID IN TESTIMONY IS REMARKABLE!!! WOW
http://sussexcountyde.gov/docs/agendasMinutes/index.cfm?resource=day¤tDate=6/20/12
It was a unanimous decision. Wait for the shit storm to hit.
There’s an international storm brewing about the Olympics. Have you seen?
http://gawker.com/5920036/us-olympics-committee-is-mad-at-knitting-olympics-for-denigrating-real-athletes
John Kerry to play Romney in Obama debate prep…
President Obama has recruited Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to play the part of Mitt Romney in mock debates ahead of the three presidential debates in October, the Obama campaign has confirmed to CBS News.
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.r…3&videofeed=39
In other News, the Romney Campaign is having great difficulty finding a Dumbass as Big as O’bama (Joe Biden is already booked) to prep for the debates…
No, they found their dumbass: Rob Portman will play Obama. I guess they could not find a black Republican.
Yes Rockland, President Obama is just such a dumbass. What a knee slapper.
Hey Rockland, I never got your response to George Washington, John Adams and co. being “libs” for favoring mandates. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act
“Not only did most framers support these federal mandates to buy firearms and health insurance, but there is no evidence that any of the few framers who voted against these mandates ever objected on constitutional grounds. Presumably one would have done so if there was some unstated original understanding that such federal mandates were unconstitutional. Moreover, no one thought these past purchase mandates were problematic enough to challenge legally.”
Scalia and friends know more about original intent than the Founders themselves?
Boy, we are all so lucky to have a straight shooter, a guy who always tells the truth, as President, Barack Obama
@Rusty Dils–
Is Obama any worse than GWB, GHWB, Reagan, Ford, or Nixon? Is Mitt Romney more of an honest “straight shooter” than Obama?
I say “no” to both questions. These people are politicians. They lie for a living.