Guest: Conservative blogger John Nolte
We stretch out our debating muscles as Sam talks taxes with a conservative blogger, wonder why Maine’s governor hates labor murals (hint- R.), and vote Kloppenberg all on today’s Majority Report Recap!
At a time when the majority of Americans now support gay marriage, Montana is still fighting to make sure that it is illegal to be gay.
The infamous Paul Lepage, governor of Maine, (you know, the guy who exempted only himself from increased pension contributions) has ordered the removal of 36 foot mural depicting Maine’s labor movement and the names changed on certain conference rooms.
Judge says Chris Christie’s New Jersey school budget cuts violated constitution, fell heavily on high-risk districts.
Next Sam has a tax policy debate with conservative John Nolte of Andrew Breitbart’s BigHollywood.com, facts be dammed!
U.S. rescue chopper shoots six Libyan villagers as they welcome pilots of downed Air Force jet
Nevermind.
CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson slams Fox news for having more waffles than reporting actual news.
In Wisconsin Supreme Court news; Stop the turd, vote Kloppenburg.
If you are not a Majority Report member you miss out on the Members Only Show podcast. Join today! Support independent media!
On today’s Member’s Only show Sam continued his discussion on the tax issues with listeners, the Attack of the Grape Clones, the continuing story of replacement-Dorsey, and Sam responds to IMs.
11:48 am
Paul LePage is a disgrace to the great state of Maine. A buddy of mine made this video because LePage also thinks its funny to joke about giving chemicals to our kids and “girls with little beards…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqjPS9QdfwQ
Sammy, keep after this fat piece of shit!
11:49 am
speaking of the Brietbart effect… Looks like Dave Zirin is the latest to bail on HuffPo…
via twitter
11:56 am
Wow! Great drawing. Very talented artist.
11:59 am
i don’t know about anybody else but my personal experience is that the reagan years absolutely sucked for prosperity.
12:05 pm
“Soak the rich, that’s all democrats want to do,” is what my brother-in-law said when I was visiting my sister prior to the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Now, my sister didn’t want me talk politics, but I couldn’t resist–he brought it up.
So, I said, “Well, it could be worse. It could be as bad as it was in 50′s, 60′s and early 70′s.”
As if on queue, my brother-in-law retorted, “what do you mean? America was number one in almost everything then, jobs, productivity, education, healthcare, science, technology, you name. America was number one!”
I said, “no, that’s not what I meant. That’s when we were ‘soaking the rich,’ and had a ninety percent top bracket for individuals and corporations paid up to 70 percent.”
“Yes, we had a strong economy, we had a strong dollar, and the strongest middle class that ever existed, plus we had strong unions, too. It is something we seem to have forgotten. Just as we’ve forgotten that the basic principle of economics is supply and demand.
Since “supply-side” economics came to fore in the 1980′s, we’ve forgotten what demand means. It is not wanting, desiring or needing, its being able to put the money on the counter and demand goods or services.
While we’ve had two decades of income growth for the top 5%, the rest of American’s incomes have been stagnant and falling behind. Stimulus packages that only offer credit, isn’t real stimulus, its indebtedness.
Now, we have situation, which Obama and others are bemoaning of trillions of corporate dollars “sitting on the sidelines,” and still more trillions of dollars in the hands of the wealthy, “sitting on the sidelines.”
People have to start getting paid, and this happened in those days because of those high tax rates. The rich had to invest or see Uncle Sam take their money, corporations had to invest in their plant and people, or their stockholders would go crazy seeing 70 percent of any profit going to the government.
To cry about seeing the top tax rate go from the low 30 percentile to the mid-30′s is absurd. To give tax breaks to corporations that send jobs overseas is un-American.
Yes, in the day, WE were number one. Now, we just have the greedy and politicians who are bankrolled by the greedy only thinking about number one, themselves. When are we going to put America first?
12:08 pm
tell this guy to watch ‘Inside Job’ PLEASE – he thinks the economy went into the Great Recession because of Fanny and Freddie alone – brainwashed individual needs an infusion of facts stat.
12:13 pm
This conversation – Once again it proves the point, fear and double-speak trump reason and facts. Rule 101 paragrah 1 of the Republican playbook.
12:14 pm
Please, please, no more of these idiots. We hear this shit day in and day out from every major outlet in this propaganda filled country. This is the oasis from the shit. Thank you!
12:34 pm
i agree….sorry sammy
12:38 pm
Me too. Not really looking forward to the new phone system.
12:14 pm
Ask Mr. Nolte if it is fair that middle and lower-income Americans pay a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes. Here in Minnesota, the rich pay about 10 percent, while everyone else is paying over 12 percent.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/118136484.html
12:27 pm
According to the following article, revenues have doubled every single decade since the Great Depresion. The guy never got back to Sam’s point about the booming economy during the 50′s and 60′s (though he said he would after repeating a line he’d already stated about 20 times), and neglected to mention that Clinton inherited a recession, raised taxes and the economy grew while decreasing the deficit. He simply repeated his faith in lower taxes for the wealthy like a
http://www.econdatus.com/taxcuts.html
3:21 pm
http:www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
3:23 pm
http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
12:28 pm
mornin gang.
persist!
what goes around comes around
12:35 pm
aye to that! those greedy fuckers will get theirs.
12:46 pm
!
12:42 pm
Does John Nolte realize that Bush didn’t include the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budget and so once Obama included them the deficit shot up in numbers as a result.
12:49 pm
from nora (bless her!)
Dear Friends,
We want to let you all know about the exciting rallies around the nation this Saturday, March 26th that are being organized by our friends at The Organic Consumers Association, Millions Against Monsanto campaign. Their events are designed to spread awareness of genetically modified foods and Monsanto’s increasing monopoly of our foods. The main rally will be at the White House, with others being held around the United States.
Current events are listed below. New locations are being added, so please check the campaigns’ Facebook page for updates in your area/location: http://www.facebook.com/rallyfortherighttoknow2011
MAIN EVENT: Washington, D.C., 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, The White House Sidewalk (The White House Sidewalk is the sidewalk between East and West Executive Avenues on the South side of Pennsylvania Avenue NW) 11am- 3pm
Dates for ALL locations is Saturday March 26, 2011 and include (alphabetically):
Ann Arbor MI, Southeast corner of Catherine Street and N. 4th Avenue, just south of the A2 Farmers Market and Kerrytown Shops 12pm – 3pm
Albuquerque NM, UNM 12pm – 3pm
Atlanta GA, Around Centennial Olympic Park across from the CNN Bldg. 11am – 4pm
Austin TX, at The Capitol 12pm – 3pm
New York City, City Hall steps, between Broadway and Park Row 12pm – 1pm
Colorado Springs CO, Acacia Park 11am – 1:30pm
Hollywood FL, Open Air Bandshell Theatre on Hollywood Beach Boardwalk, 100 Johnson Street and North Ocean Drive/A1A 11am – 2pm
Indianapolis IN, 200 W. Washington Street #220 12pm – 2pm
Kansas City MO, The Plaza Downtown Kansas City 11am – 3pm
LA CA, Los Angeles (Westwood) Federal Bldg, 11000 Wilshire Blvd. 11am – 2pm
Maui HI, in front of Long’s streetside on Ka’ahumanu Ave in Kahului 8am – 11am
Milwaukee WI, Water and Wisconsin 11am – 2pm
Montpelier VT, Outside CITY HALL 11am – 3pm
Nashville TN, Nashville Farmers Market, 900 Rosa Parks Boulevard (Eighth Avenue North) 10am – 1pm
Queen Creek AZ, Safeway Food Store, Queen Creek, Arizona East valley Power and Queen Creek road 12pm – 1pm
Saint Paul MN, Minnesota State Capitol Building – South Mall, 75 Rev Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd 12pm – 2pm
Salem OR, 900 Court St. NE, Salem, Oregon 97301 12pm – 3pm
Seattle WA, Westlake Park 12pm – 2pm
Tampa Bay FL, Downtown 11am – 2pm
We urge you to forward this information to your networks. And click here to visit our site and post this alert to Facebook.
Also, don’t forget to join the Tipping Point Network to connect with local and national Non-GMO Action Groups, so the momentum continues.
Thanks for your support!
The Staff of the Institute for Responsible Technology
—————-
More at
http://responsibletechnology.org/take-action/join-the-campaign
12:52 pm
from artnorton
Japan’s windfarms save it’s ass!
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-18-japans-wind-farms-save-its-ass-while-nuclear-plants-flounder
12:54 pm
First off, I want to thank Sam for a spirited and civil debate.
To answer someone’s question above: “The guy never got back to Sam’s point about the booming economy during the 50′s and 60′s…”
Keep in mind that when the top tax rates were in the 70 to 90% range, we weren’t competing in a global economy like we are today. Today, American tax rates have to compete with the industrialized world’s tax rates, including the emerging industrialized world in China and India. If our tax rates are too high, no one will want to do business here. They’ll go elsewhere. Why does Hollywood always shoot in Canada — because it look more like NY than NY? No, because the tax benefits are so lucrative. Who loses — rich execs and stars? No, American workers who would normally crew those films.
Economics aside, taxing anyone at the rate of 70 to 90% is flat-out immoral in a free country.
Thanks again, Sam!
9:49 am
So America didn’t compete in a global marketplace in the 50′s and 60′s? Hmm. Is that because you want it to be true, or like a lot of conservatives, because you don’t do history. Or maybe your Google fingers are broken?
Might I suggest the following Google search terms: “1950s outsourcing and offshoring” (the latter being the turn of phrase at the time).
I think you’ll find what the rest of humanity that’s not Republican learned from actual study of history. Manufacturers began outsourcing mostly low skilled production to poorer countries after World War II.
Why low skilled? Because other places hadn’t caught up on skills or infrastructure yet (there was that whole WWII thing after all), and Republicans hadn’t had enough time to gut education spending to make America lose its lead.
Even if that’s when outsourcing in the modern sense began, there have alway been emerging economies, and capital has always been basically free to flee to them. Companies make a calculation to move production based on many relative factors, including: corporate tax rate, labor costs, labor skill, technological infrastructure, political stability, and cost to ship to market.
If a relatively high corporate tax rate helps pay for a relatively more stable, healthy, educated society with efficient infrastructure, it is not necessarily true that production will leave. It’s only true if production in the alternative country, all these things considered, costs less.
1:01 pm
Sammy, I think its axiomatic debating “conservatives” as an occasional segment lends value to your show – politically, educationally and – of course – in the body of drama’s attractive draw as entertainment.
May I suggest that rebalancing your approach such that your offensive parries reserved for hard hits set-up by “rope-a-dope” goading and demands that the conservative cite, explain or otherwise prove the explicit point s/he’s asserting.
In the “FlipSide” a number of these set-up points were mentioned as you read tweets and IMs – e.g.: Laffer Curve, Valid vs. Invalid sourcing, ….
For example, NBER determined that the recession of 2001/2 began in March of 2001 making it W’s 1st recession. Therefore, he neither inherited a recession from Clinton nor did his (s)election months prior lend comfort or certainty to “markets”.
In the end, and I think you know this, the value in debating righties on air is in captivating your audience, not the conversion of an opponent to your side. The latter is the gravy to the former’s centrality as the meat.
Lastly, one thing that might be cool, and more of a “community” (building?) thing would be to create a medium herein where right-wing talking points as well as aged, zombie rhetoric can be assembled along with the facts, arguments and links/citations that explode them. Again, Laffer’s Curve is the low hanging fruit example of a right-wing zombie that’s been so roundly exorcised that you can almost see the mass of “wooden stakes” protruding form the beast’s chest before you see the actual beast itself. Yet, too many (left and right) are seduced by the designed slipperiness of the myth.
1:03 pm
You’re going to blame a recession that began 20 mos. after Bush took office on Bush? That’s absurd.
I don’t even blame Clinton for that recession. It’s just a cyclical thing. But what got us out of it — what helped to make it a shallow recession were those tax cuts.
8:34 pm
I’d be willing to debate you on this point, but you contradicted your own position simply to take a shot at me.
You said, and I quote, Bush “inherited” the recession. If, accepting your premise for the moment, the recession of 2001/2 was cyclical, then Bush couldn’t have inherited anything any more than his predecessor could have caused it.
I appreciate your desire to defend your positions, but starting that defense with a self-contradictory assertion is nothing less than bad faith.
8:36 pm
Oh yes, March 2001 is not 20 months after Bush took office.
I’ll leave you to do the math.
1:01 pm
BTW; Here’s the data on tax rates so you can compare apples to apples as far as other countries. For instance, when you add the Fed and State corporate tax, America has one of the highest in the world. How do we compete in that market?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
1:01 pm
amazing Japan pix here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter.htm
1:02 pm
Sam taught that young lady that “cute” and “kisses” work because she got an interview.
1:03 pm
Well that sucked.
1:10 pm
The logical extension of our having to compete with emerging economies, is to reduce ourselves to the level of one of those economies.
I’d be fine with lowering the corporate tax to those of the Scandanavian countries so long as there was a corresponding raise in the top tax rate of individual tax payers, Reagan’s cuts did just the opposite. So his primary concern was with rewarding the wealthy whether they worked or not, rather than creating jobs.
And again, Clinton inherited a recession, raised taxes, and the economy grew, while the deficit decreased.
The only thing Reagan ‘s tax cut gave us was a huge deficit and a decaying infrastructure.
1:13 pm
Reagan doubled tax revenues. That’s a fact. Deficits were caused by spending, not tax rates.
1:20 pm
1)Tax revenues doubled in every decade after the Great Depression, as I showed in my prior link. That’s the relevant fact.
2) The increase in spending went to the military not social programs, so once again, Reagan’s fault.
11:23 am
John Nolte, professional simpleton, amazing how simple you perceive the world to be….you seem to be simply repeating yourself….why is it useful to even engage in conversation with someone who sees the world in such a simple manner….yet you speak with the authority of an academic, regardless of the utter stupidity of your simplistic views.
Sammy, please do not waste any more of our time with this repeating fool.
1:16 pm
Reagan doubled tax revenues. That’s a fact.
No, that is false. Please show us historical budget data from the OMB which indicates that this is true. As shown to you already, it’s not even in the ballpark of being true, no matter how generous someone is in the assumptions with respect to your claim.
Deficits were caused by spending, not tax rates.
So now you’re saying Small Government Ron was a profligate spender? How does that work? Granted, I agree with you – he spent like a drunken sailor. I’m just wondering how that then makes him the patron saint of fiscal conservatism.
1:11 pm
bye gang
Peaches!
6:48 pm
Keep in mind that when the top tax rates were in the 70 to 90% range, we weren’t competing in a global economy like we are today. Today, American tax rates have to compete with the industrialized world’s tax rates, including the emerging industrialized world in China and India. If our tax rates are too high, no one will want to do business here.
Right, all the rich Americans will become naturalized Chinese or Indians if their top marginal rate goes up 4 percentage points. Another stellar assertion.
Why does Hollywood always shoot in Canada
You should consult the meaning of the word “always”.
Since your empirical assertions are simply gratuitously false, falling back on some glib generality about the “immorality” of a specific marginal tax rate doesn’t do anything for your argument. The whole point of the interview was to see if you would actually tell us what exactly the magic top marginal rate is for federal income taxes, and you demonstrated that you don’t even know what they have been in what years, including this one, and then when confronted with the reality that the 28% you said was just right actually started during Reagan’s last year, you just did a little dance and said the point is that he dropped taxes (which is also false – he raised FICA and gas taxes, to name two big ones) and thought you made some zinger by showing that Kennedy lowered them, too.
Your assertion that “revenues doubled” has absolutely no factual basis, even if you neglect inflation, GDP and population growth, and the fact that the vast majority of revenue increase came from FICA and gas taxes (which again, were RAISED under Reagan) and that 7 of the 8 years the top marginal rate was the supposedly “immoral” 50%. Not to mention that the unemployment rated basically halved between 1982 and 1988, which means a heck of a lot more people were working and paying taxes – hence the extra revenue.
Total revenue in 1981 (Carter’s last budget year) was $599 billion and by 1989 (Reagan’s last budget year) it was $991 billion. That’s 65%, not 100% – per your claim. You’re overstating by a factor of 1.5.
Adjust that for inflation (which is essential, since inflation was a huge factor for a good chunk of the Reagan presidency, which you folks love harping about that Carter handed to him) and it drops to a 23% increase in revenue – not 100%, per your claim. You’re now overstating it by a factor of 4.
Drop down to individual income taxes, which is what you’re actually talking about (not total receipts), the inflation adjusted amount in 1981 was $383 billion and $446 billion by 1989. Now we’re down to 16% – and your assertion is more than a 6-factor overstatement.
Now let’s move on to percentage of GDP – a ratio your kind was very fond of during the Bush II era to try to pooh-pooh the deficit, gas prices, etc. In 1981, individual income tax receipts were 9.1% of GDP. By 1989, it had DROPPED to 8.1%. Now your wingnut “math” of +100% becomes in the light of day -11%. No wonder the debt held by the public went from 25.8% of GDP to 40.6% of GDP under Reagan, given the accounting magic you people like to indulge in.
I also got a kick out of your notion of when recessions begin and end. The last one ended in June 2009 – 5 months into Obama’s 1st year. It’s been over for almost 2 years now, yet you claim we’re still in one. Bush didn’t inherit one, it started early on in his first term – as others pointed out. He also inherited 3.9% unemployment, whereas Obama inherited a stunning 841,000 lost private sector jobs from December 2008 to January 2009.
Reagan inherited the residual of the second oil shock. Carter, in a bargain that would be unthinkable in today’s world, let the price of domestic oil become unregulated in exchange for the windfall profits tax. Inflation took off and he paid the price at the polls.
Volcker, under Carter, jacked interest rates to deal with the inflation, primarily driven by the run-up in oil prices from deregulation (which Nixon put in place btw), and that’s what tanked the economy in the short run. But once the Fed’s interest rate moves put a brake on inflation, it had a huge palliative effect on the economy. That, coupled with a sharp drop-off in oil prices — partly from the recession and mostly from new CAFE standards (thank Carter again) — is what laid the groundwork for a better economy. Reagan jacked FICA and gas taxes and went nuts with federal spending (also extremely stimulating to GDP, since it is a component of GDP). Federal spending added at least 1/2 a percentage point to GDP in every Reagan year but his last. Fancy that he pulled back on spending and lowered income tax rates in 1988 just in time to help Bush get elected, then lo and behold, the “Reagan miracle” took a dive and we soon got a big Bush recession – not to be confused with the Earth-shattering one his son left us all with.
7:20 pm
Here’s the data on tax rates so you can compare apples to apples as far as other countries. For instance, when you add the Fed and State corporate tax, America has one of the highest in the world. How do we compete in that market?
Really? You think business outsources to India and China because of taxes? They do it because of labor costs. This is basic stuff.
Also, top marginal rates mean nothing without consulting effective rates. Perhaps if you read your own link, you’d see the first two sentences:
“Comparison of tax rates around the world is difficult and somewhat subjective. Tax laws in most countries are extremely complex, and tax burden falls differently on different groups in each country and sub-national unit.”
So much for “apples to apples”, per your claim.
Now let’s look at what the tax rates are in real life. From 1948 to 2009, total taxes on corporate income (all governmental levels) as a percentage of the national income of private industry had a median value of 4.3%. In 2009, it was 2.2% – a record low. Its median value under Reagan was 3.3% and went UP on his watch – from 3.46% his first year to 3.59% his last.
Our total taxation as a percentage of GDP, among major developed countries, is either dead last or 2nd to last.
These are actual facts.
8:53 pm
Sammy! The problem with this interview is that the interviewee’s audio level was noticeably louder than yours. Despite your rational arguments vs. his memorized talking points, in a world where the loudest voice wins (the alternate world where the teabaggers and lizard people dwell), he won the debate.
11:22 pm
It was convenient that Nolte identified himself quickly as a childish waste of my time with his obsession about donating taxes. He’s obviously more interested in monitoring other people’s behavior than having a serious discussion about tax policy. I didn’t learn anything other than the most worthy opponent Sam can find on Twitter is still a waste of time.
I wonder if he would have been impressed by a different sort of argument than the comparison to gym dues. What if I said donating the extra money I wish the government would tax from me would give me nothing in return, but a change in tax policy would give me something of value, such as not having to trip over all the homeless special needs kids on the sidewalk?
And that doesn’t even address the wrong assumption that a change in tax policy that raises overall tax revenue would raise my taxes in particular. He assumes I want to raise my tax rate from 20% to 35%, when in fact I want to raise corporate taxes from 0% to fucking anything.
2:02 am
Thank you! Well said.
11:24 am
I also think that Twitter is a moronic place to have a debate. Truly pathetic little bites of information. Why not do it on a blog or facebook, where you can see the whole thread?
1:13 pm
It’s just a cyclical thing. But what got us out of it — what helped to make it a shallow recession were those tax cuts.
So it’s cyclical and no one’s to blame, but Bush has magic tax cut powers to change this supposedly natural cycle. Which academic economic studies support this hypothesis of yours with respect to that specific recession?
Since it’s a natural cycle, when’s the next recession starting and ending? Give us specific months.
4:17 pm
I have another question. How does legislation passed and signed in June somehow have an effect on taxes paid in April of that same year? Tax day is April 15, the legislation was signed in early June.
Also, the top marginal rate was lowered by a mere 50 basis points for 2001 – in the case of people still paying taxes after April 15. And your claim is this worked some voodoo magic to soften the recession? Do you have actual data to support this, or is this just one more of your unfounded assertions and much like the magic time machine of the 28% top marginal from 1988 launching back to Reagan’s inauguration and bringing immediate glory, even though a nasty recession started under Reagan and unemployment peaked at 10.8% two years into his presidency?
Looking at 2001 some more, I do see that government spending added considerably to GDP, all the way into and past the fourth quarter of 2002. Without a massive increase in government spending, the GDP would have declined in that quarter. I thought you said the recession had been shortened and softened, and there it was two years into his presidency and government spending was keeping GDP in the black. Hmm. Shades of Reagan.
Let’s all go back to the warm comfort of glib, baseless generalities about the magic powers of endless tax cuts and the “immorality” of contributing to society.
9:59 am
Sam, next time you talk to Nolte, clue him into this little detail regarding federal tax revenue rising under Reagan:
Growth in per capita federal tax revenue 1980-1988: 19%
Growth in per capita federal tax revenue 1972-1980: 24%
See:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/
So much for Saint Ronnie of Supply Side and his magical tax cuts that magically goosed tax revenue to unheard of orgasmic levels according to your average ill informed Republican.