Morning Joe 7/10/2012 -- Taxing the rich and other gimmicks

On Morning Joe today the crew talked about Obama's push to tax Americans who make over 250000 a year. They showed clips of Obama making his case, and you would think that taxing the rich can really bring in revenues and help put government and the economy back on track. The perception that's put forth is that super rich Americans are hoarding money at a time when teachers, police and fire fighters are fired from their jobs. Obama wants to save jobs for teachers, firefighters and police and protect the middle class tax cuts. Isn't he just wonderful?

Obama is portraying this issue as Republicans protecting the rich people who hoard money, while creating a standoff that could cause taxes to go up on the middle class. If you listen to Obama, then this is the issue boiled down for you, and you should certainly hate the GOP and admire Obama and the Democrats. If you think a little bit, though, the issue is different than what Obama portrays. Creating the arbitrary line of 250,000 is odd. Are people who make between $175,000 and $250,000 middle class workers struggling from paycheck to paycheck? On the other hand, does taxing those making over $250,000 hit only the rich people hoarding money -- it doesn't make sense from either political perspective. If you really need revenues, then tax those making 80,000 and above, or somewhere along that amount, and if you believe that taxing small businesses is harmful in a downturn, then why tax small business owners making $250,000 and above a year?

The most incredible fact that no one in media talks about, and one which makes Obama's speeches and moral preaching as phony as a Steve Rattner chart, is that taxing those who make over $250,000 by the amount proposed by the President will bring in 80 billion a year, and this will cover about a week's worth of government spending -- about 8 days of spending. But, taking this money away from individuals with a small business will have a great effect. So, Obama wants to pull 80 billion a year out of the private sector where it will be spent in 8 days of profligate government spending, thus hurting small business owners and their employees, just so that Obama can demonize the GOP as haters of public service workers and to make himself look good to those who aren't paying attention to the truth -- it's all political, yet it harms real people. Obama is becoming the biggest obstacle to job creation, not the Republicans.

Up with Chris Hayes 4/15/2012 -- So much phony righteousness

On Up with Chris Hayes there was a solid liberal/progressive panel without one dissenting voice or one thinker with conflicting ideas. David Cay Johnston, Betsey Stevenson (?), Heather McGhee and Tom Perrielo. The conversation was mostly about taxes for the first hour, and that's all I watched. The panel promoted Obama's campaign on fairness regarding the Buffett Rule. Perrielo seemed to think that the Buffett Rule will solve most of society's problems. One guest said that it will bring the country together rather than divide the classes even more, because it will bring the rich into taking responsibility to pay their fair share of the taxes. The conversation was surreal as they said Obama is getting the rich to pay their taxes, while they all said the rich should pay their fair share several times a piece and shouldn't get by without paying taxes. Incredible. Anyone can Google this issue and get the numbers on what group of Americans pay taxes and how much.

This focus on raising taxes is amazing. It makes sense only in relation to class envy. Democrats believe that the public is very angry that rich people aren't paying even more than they are, which is already the lion's share of taxes. These poll questions are superficial, and you can get a majority of Americans to agree to the rich paying more for anything, hamburgers, haircuts, whatever. If, though, you ask whether the government is better at spending the country's wealth or the American people are better at spending their own wealth, you will get a different poll result. The Buffett Rule will bring in enough revenue to pay for a half a day of government spending. Government spending is so great that these gimmicky deals are silly and useless, and it shows that Obama is not a serious person. Obama is more worried about perception and political tricks than he is with the health of the US economy. It's a sad reality to consider the nation's economic situation and then place that into perspective regarding Obama's focus and waste of time on the political gimmick he calls the Buffett Rule. 

Later Chris Hayes showed a clip where Romney had said a while back that women on welfare with children should also experience the dignity of work, when just recently he joined the GOP chorus elevating the work ethic of stay at home moms. Hayes stated this made him very angry. If only he would get as angry regarding Democrat hypocrisy and contradictions in principles.

Morning Joe 2/14/2012 -- three budgets and two are anti-economic growth

On Morning Joe today Jeffrey Sachs presented Mika with the President's budget -- Mika kissed the budget, leaving her lipstick impression as a signature. Mika has been told by the White House that the budget attempts to achieve balance, so that's what Mika says. Sachs says the budget is good as far as it goes, but it needs to go much further. Steve Rattner was on the Morning Joe panel, and he believes that tax and entitlement reform are needed, as does Scarborough -- Sam McKinnon was on and I think he believes we need to reform taxes and entitlements, but it's hard to tell what he believes.

Jeffrey Sachs is the only honest Leftist on Morning Joe, and he represents where the President and the Left want to go, and Centrists are willing to follow -- with single payer, State run healthcare and much higher taxes on rich people. Sachs and Rattner, two Leftists, disgreed on the budget issues regarding mandatory, entitlement spending and discretionary spending, such as military, education, energy, etc. Sachs believes that entitlement spending will be fine if we fix healthcare by turning it completely over to the management of government so that costs are driven down. Rattner believes entitlements need to be reformed because mandatory spending is squeezing out discretionary spending -- Rattner believes the rich should pay more in taxes, but I think he's open to any plan that increases revenues. Scarborough is basically in tune with McKinnon and other Centrist Republicans -- they believe that tax reform which brings in more revenue by getting rid of loopholes, and a curb in the growth of entitlement spending, will be the budgetary path that's most effective.

Scarborough got in his dig against Tea Partiers by going back to the smear made against them early on that they want a limited government, but at the same time they don't want government touching their Medicare. This smear against the Tea Party came early on when some older participants who've heard the Left's scare tactics of Medicare elimination and the Right's claim that Obamacare contains Medicare cuts protested that they don't want government taking what they've paid into. These were  older Americans who've paid into the Medicare system for over 40 years, and who've been promised that if they paid in they'd have coverage in retirement. These older Americans didn't create Medicare, it was created by government and it's the system that Americans are forced to pay into. Scarborough is making fun of these hard-working Americans, even mimicking their accents as he perceives them, who are approaching retirement for defending what they've been promised and that they've paid into. You can't blame these older Americans for being confused about what Government has planned -- Scarborough looks like a petty prick trying to make points with his liberal friends when he makes fun of older Americans who've been jerked around and are tired of it. 

So there are three budgets -- the Left's budget, the moderates' budget, then there is Ron Paul's budget. We've seen compromises between the Left and the moderates for decades, and now we're 16 trillion in debt with the deficit running a trillion dollars a year as far as we can see. Scarborough and the Centrists, if  Republicans win in 2012, will propose what looks like a balanced budget which satisfies the Left and the Right --this budget will promise to curb entitlement spending and it will tax the rich at a higher rate. This is th balanced approach that Scarborough and moderates have promoted, criticizing the Left for not wanting to touch Entitlements, and criticizing the Right for not wanting to raise revenues. The moderates will say that they are "reforming" the tax code in order to bring in more revenue, but in order to bring in more revenue, no matter how the tax code is reformed, the rich will have to pay more, because any plan that's not strongly progressive will be excoriated in the media and Republicans will be cast as patsies for rich Fat Cats. So, Scarborough and Republican moderates will do what they've always done, capitulate to the culture war against the producers in America, those now called disparagingly the 1%.

You can see it from the Left and the Center, the "1%" will be blamed for all our problems, and, if only they are regulated and taxed more, we'll be okay. In the mean time, though, corporations favored by the current party in power will be protected and favored -- sometimes it's the same corporations for either party. Only Ron Paul and true limited government representatives are calling for real government cuts in spending that reduce the debt and end wasteful programs. the Left and the Center are not far apart -- the Left only wants to move more quickly to full government control over the economy. The Left and and the Center are almost there, but there's still resistance to a complete takeover. 2012 will tell how strong this resistance has become and which budget we'll use going forward.

Morning Joe 12/7/2011 -- Obama's anti-free market speech

On Morning Joe today Mika was very pleased with President Obama's Kansas speech. The guests were Peggy Noonan, Donnie Deutsche, Boone Pickens and Donald Trump during the first segment. It's a little depressing that the Left is so pleased with Obama's speech, because it appears they're more concerned with image and marketing than with substance and results. Even if I believed in the Leftist vision, I'd have to say that Obama has been a failure.

But, certainly, there is nothing for the Right to cheer about, or to be afraid of in the long run, except if enough in DC embrace Obama's direction. Obama is pushing a tired ideology that can hardly move forward. Obama is taking a cattle prod to it, and it still won't move forward -- it can only go backwards. We're broke and statism has failed. Even if Democrats do get tax hikes on the rich pushed through congress, what then? The Left can't get enough from the rich to make much difference. Yes, the Left can waste more money on a transportation scheme or a few infrastructure projects, but what then? In a few years, the same systemic problems will exist, and the little economic bump will have dissipated, and the economy will still be stagnant.

Major systemic changes are needed to make a difference in people's lives, and only through a free market can economic growth and the required innovation take place. Obama's denigration of free market principles are so out of touch with what's needed, it's sad. Following China to an infrastructure bubble is not the answer -- another New Deal is not the answer -- redistribution is not the answer. The State has succeeded in gaining almost complete control over the economy, but what's next? It's a dead end that leads to decline. The global market will require dynamic economic growth, but no country yet has accepted what this requires. Worldwide statism has only misdirected capital, and until there is freedom for capital to flow to where it's most productive, large countries who try to centrally plan economic direction will experience bubbles or stagnation and decline.

The conversation on Morning Joe talked all around the fundamental issues. Even if Obama is successful with his populist plan, what then? If America doesn't take the lead with free market economic growth, some other area of the world will, and that's where the action will head. America will be left trying to fairly divide a pie that's mostly leftover crumbs. If Obama does believe in equal opportunity, then he will fight to end the feeding trough in DC which rewards the hogs who create the most unfairness and inequality of opportunity-- politicians and rent-seeking corporations.

Up with Chris Hayes 10/29/2011 -- Taxing the rich, taxing the rich

The guests on Up with Chris Hayes this morning were Ta-Nehisi Coates, Heather McGhee, Eliot Spitzer, Mort Zuckerman and Jan Shakowsky, and the topics ranged from OWS to evil Republicans to taxing the rich to taxing the rich to Herman Cain to taxing the rich to redistribution to income disparity to taxing the rich.

It was firmly established that Republicans and the 1% rich bastards are responsible for most of our problems, and, despite Zuckerman's claim that Obama hasn't been a good leader, Obama has tried to compromise, but Republicans are captured by the ideological power elite of the far Right, so they resist taxing the rich even though the majority of Americans, even Tea Partiers, favor taxing the rich. I doubt Obama's leadership skills or the power elite of the far Right have much to do with the problems brought up on Hayes' show. Obama is a temporary actor in DC and the far Right has little control over Leviathan.

But, according to OWS, Chris Hayes and the liberals/progressives who dominate his show, somehow taxing the rich is going to be a major part of the solution regarding income disparity and corporate influence over our government. After taxes are increased on the rich, what then? Will government give those in the middle class and lower class direct payments to equal out the income disparity? Even if government did directly redistribute wealth, would this solve our economic problems? I don't think so. First, I doubt the wealthy in this country would sit idly by as wealth is redistributed, and if taxes are raised, the rich will find a way to get around the tax hikes. Economic growth is the only way to increase incomes in a sustainable way across the board. Neither direct redistribution nor taxing the rich will generate economic growth.

Education was brought up as a means to prepare more Americans for the global economy, but US companies have to find a way to compete in the global economy which generates American jobs. I'm just not sure what Chris Hayes, OWS and all the liberal/progressive voices of discontent are recommending as solutions. Yes, most people in America are discontent with cronyism and corporate welfare, and not many people are defending past Republican performance in governance, but, when you go beyond this discontent, what do you have? The Democrats? What have Democrats done to end corporate welfare and stop cronyism? The Solyndra scandal shows that cronyism cuts both ways in the political world. Democrats had an opportunity after 2008 to raise taxes on the rich and end all corporate favors, but they didn't.

Most of the guests on Up with Chris Hayes said that healthcare reform is a big part of the solution, and they defended Obama's efforts, only they think he should have gone further with a single payer system. It's painfully obvious that what has been done with healthcare is going to add to costs and limit access for many. In a country as large and diverse as America, nationalized healthcare would be a disaster -- it would complete the bankruptcy of America. Even if we tried single payer healthcare, what then? How will it be paid for if we don't create economic growth? Universal healthcare is a benefit only wealthy nations can offer. The 1% have done well, but not that well -- all of their money wouldn't keep us afloat for long -- and, again, then what? Only the most delusional analyses show universal healthcare as a cost saver.

If we take better education as one solution, how is this achieved? No one in their right mind can claim we haven't spent enough on education, and if they say we haven't spent the money wisely, then why not? Government is in control of education, so why hasn't government spent the money wisely, and what justification is there for thinking smarter government officials will do so now? From all indications our statist system is broken, and what will change if we maintain the same system? The Left promotes a stronger statist system, and they say Republicans are the obstacle. But, again, when Democrats had the opportunity after 2008, they failed to act in any meaningful way. Democrats created healthcare reform that many of them don't even like now that the details are known. There have been thousands of companies and organizations seeking protection from the reform.

The Up with Chris Hayes panel was short on solutions, although they loudly identified the problems, as they view the problems. It's obvious that Hayes' show is a propaganda format for the Left, but they could at least put forth their ideas for solutions -- taxing the rich and more aggressive redistribution might be symbolically appealing, but after this is done, then what? Where does the new wealth come from to sustain economic growth?