Evan Bayh & Ben Nelson Join Overclass Revolt Against Obama’s Tax Plans
Are you one of the 95 percent of Americans whose taxes would be cut under Barack Obama’s budget? Does the thought of that tax cut being paid for by tax increases on the wealthiest 2 percent of the population strike terror into your heart? If so, you’re in look, because it’s not just Republicans who are eager to spare you from this nightmare moderate Democrats such as Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson want to keep the rich as rich as possible too:
As for the tax increases on high-income earners called for in Obama’s plan, [Evan] Bayh said, “I do think that before we raise revenue, we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending.” [...] “I have major concerns about trying to raise taxes in the midst of a downturn of the economy,” said [Ben] Nelson, the conservative Nebraska Democrat. “On the one hand, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. On the other hand, you’re trying to keep money from going into taxpayers’ pockets. It’s very difficult to make that logic work.”
It’s particularly depressing here that Nelson seems to have gotten 100 percent of his information about Obama’s tax plans from Fox News and zero percent from participating in the extensive on- and off-the-record briefings for members of congress, congressional staff, and media that the administration has organized. But once again, nobody is raising taxes in the midst of a downturn.
Meanwhile, the median household income in Indiana is $42,000 a year. Families making that much would not see tax increases under Obama’s plan. Families making double the Indiana median household income would not see tax increases under Obama’s plan. Families making double that would not see tax increases under Obama’s plan. Only families making almost six times the median household income of Indiana would see increases; increases that would essentially take us back to the rates that prevailed during the more prosperous 1990s. But never fear, if you’re dramatically richer than most Indianans and sociopathically unconcerned with the well-being of your fellow citizens, then Evan Bayh is fighting for you.
68 Responses to “Evan Bayh & Ben Nelson Join Overclass Revolt Against Obama’s Tax Plans”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
In the earliest form of democracy, only landlords or people who were willing to pay some specific tax were able to vote. Nowadays in the United States, we have a more sophisticated system: only people rich enough to give large amounts of money to Democrats or Republicans get a real voice and representation, in what matters.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Also,
Seriously, how stupid is this guy. Keynes died decades ago, and you still ignorant politicians who want a cuts in spending in the middle of a catastrophic recession. Fine if some people are uncomfortable with the idea of a giant deficit. But cuts? Really?
March 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The tax increase on the top 2% will go nowhere. The MSM won’t let it happen because everyone you see on TV is in that income class. And they have never met anyone in the bottom 98% of income level. So, the only democrats to get interviews will be Nelson and Bayh. Obama needs to make a special exemption for the journalists who control the media. Then, they may report this issue accurately, and it might get passed.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Seriously, how stupid is this guy.
He’s not stupid, just craven or opportunistic. He faces reelection next year in what is sure to be a tough year for incumbents, in a still far-from-blue state.
I read Bayh’s piece in WSJ this morning and all I could think was, the guy’s still pissed off he didn’t get the nod from Obama. But the more obvious explanation is that, like most politicians, the national interest takes second place to job security (and, though I’m no fan of his politics, it would rather suck to see a GOP pickup in Indiana in 2010).*
* I write this with admittedly next to no knowledge about Hoosier state politics, and my guess is Bayh’s a heavy favorite. I just don’t think a really challenging year for Democrats is out of the question for 2010.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Which is it, deficit hawks? Do you want us to cut taxes or close the deficit? You do realize you can’t do both, right?
March 4th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
The tax increase on the top 2% will go nowhere. The MSM won’t let it happen because everyone you see on TV is in that income class.
Fostert: I fear you’re right. But it’s up to the White House to do everything in their power to fight this pernicious bias by forcing the issue. In other words, they should do everything in their power to make sure they give as much access as possible to progressive journalists, so that, hopefully, substantive discussion of the issue will become news.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I used to consider myself a centrist Democrat, but these guys are convincing me to join MoveOn.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Do you want us to cut taxes or close the deficit? You do realize you can’t do both, right?
No, I realize no such thing. It’s true you can’t do them at the same time, but liberals (unlike wingunts) are already aware of this. What you can do is get the economy on the right track (via Keynesian means, including tax cuts) and then raise taxes after the economy has resumed normal (and hopefully more sustainable, given abandonment of disastrous Bushian policies) growth.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
“In other words, they should do everything in their power to make sure they give as much access as possible to progressive journalists”
I’m with you, but how do you do it? Most people get their news from TV, and Obama can’t dictate who appears on TV. Fortunately, Olberman and Maddow will talk about this in a realistic manner, but nobody else will. The information people will get from CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, and most of the day on MSNBC will be geared towards only the top 2% of income earners.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Au contraire, my friend. Not only CAN you cut taxes and close the deficit at the same time, but you can do it while Obama is failing worse than any president in the history of America as every facet of the economy simultaneously recovers in a shockingly thorough and massive fashion.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I’m with you, but how do you do it?
Well, I don’t know diddly about journalism, but doesn’t the White House have a say in who gets to attend press conferences, for instance (not to mention who gets called on)? Also, can’t they grant interviews to people like Olbermann and Maddow, or even prominent lefty bloggers? I realize that the journalists themselves don’t want to be used (again, I don’t know much about journalistic ethics, so I’m not really sure how all these issues get sorted out), mind you, and I’m not suggesting for a second that a Rachel Maddow or a Matthew Yglesias ought to pull their punches when it comes to asking tough questions. My point is, it’s not as if the White House has zero ability to influence the debate: access is a pretty valuable currency. So, if enough non Broderite journalists get to ask questions, the MSM won’t be able to avoid a certain amount of reportage about this radically socialist perspective. And sooner or later, not inviting a Rachel or a Keith or a Matt or a Kevin to MTP just looks lame and out of touch.
I’m sure I’m being touchingly naive and clueless. And I’m sure Petey will be here soon to remind us who’s really calling the shots at the 30 Rocks of the world.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Very gutsy and perhaps very smart. He’s setting himself up if this all blows up in Obama’s face.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
What effect would cap & trade have on the average Indianan? How much more will they have to pay for their electricity every month? What effect will it have on Indiana’s manufacturing sector? How many jobs will it cost?
March 4th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
There’s no way Obama can cut taxes on 95% of the public and pay for everything he promises. There won’t be many giant Wall Street incomes to tax for a half decade at least.
It’s not 2007 anymore.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
@Jasper & fostert: Yes, we can win this, and we probably are going to win it. TV isn’t as monolithic or as powerful as all that. There are other institutions in America, including unions, and including the Democratic party itself.
And presumably we’ll all get out of the car and push. Worked last time.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
People are starting to hate the idiots on TV and the moderates who have always triangulated by appearing on TV and offering a “compromise” between two screaming idiots are no longer going to be considered the voice of moderation by the people but enablers of the freak show. Bayh should STFU with talking points and make, you know, points of argument.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
What effect would cap & trade have on the average Indianan?
What effect would the income redistribution from the cap & trade have on the average Indianian? Oh, sorry, you meant most Indianans are, in fact, owners or shareholders of a large polluting factory?
March 4th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
“I’m sure I’m being touchingly naive and clueless.”
No, you aren’t. Access is the one thing that Obama does have the power to grant. Rove was a master of this, and it was very effective. The New York Times had to give prominence to pro-war reporters like Judy Miller to gain access, and they still didn’t get an interview. I had a fascinating conversation on this very subject with a New Zealand couple who wanted to know why our reporting sucked so much. And I argued the exact point you are making. I just don’t want Obama to stoop that low. It really makes me queasy and concerned about the future of democracy. I’m guessing that, a year from now, I’ll be so jaded that I’ll want Obama to manipulate the media that way. I’m just not there yet. It is I who is being naive.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
“There won’t be many giant Wall Street incomes to tax for a half decade at least.”
Half a decade? How long after the 1920s was it before Wall Street had another go-go era? The next secular bull market didn’t start until 1950. That means we might not see another secular bull market until the George P. Bush administration.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Most Indianans are customers of goods produced by large polluting factories. Therefore, most Indianans will have a massive tax increase as a result of cap and trade.
Unless, you know, they make less than $250,000 a year. But who’s counting?! What is bad for the richest scumbag in your company has to be bad for you!
March 4th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“And presumably we’ll all get out of the car and push.”
You know, I can’t do much besides writing letters and posts. I grew up with a mother who was a serious political activist (”pushy ladies”, we called them back then). I spent half my childhood stuffing envelopes and knocking on doors. I’m still bitter about that. I just can’t go there anymore.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
“Most Indianans are customers of goods produced by large polluting factories.”
Most Indianans are also customers of their local utility, which will have to raise their rates because of cap & trade. That will make it a de facto regressive tax. There’s also a non-trivial number of Indianans who work in those large factories, and whose jobs could be put at risk by cap & trade. Then there’s another group of Indianans who don’t work in those factories but would like to, and may not get the chance if executives at Toyota, John Deere, or other companies decide that with cap & trade it no longer makes sense to build their next factory in Indiana.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“George P. Bush administration”
Yikes! The only good thing about that is that I’ll be dead by then. You’d think Prescott financing the Nazis would have been enough to stop the Bush family from continuing their quest for a dynastic monarchy. But they were apparently just getting warmed up. The Bush family appears to be unstoppable.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
The editors of the Detroit News on cap & trade, “Cap-and-trade plan will sink Michigan”. A couple of excerpts:
March 4th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
“The Bush family appears to be unstoppable.”
So says Yglesias, at least.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Evan Bayh was almost the vice president of the United States. Like, four times.
They tried to foist him onto Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. For about a week — a scary week — it looked like he was Obama’s pick. Every four years he gears up to run, criticising ‘the tone’ in Washington, and pledging to run on a platform that has never been made so seriously or with such care.
He’s an opportunist, firmly lodged in the Beltway, who’ll take any position that’ll get him a quick headline and a wave from Broder. He’s cynical and unprincipled. We must watch him.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
“Michigan will lose as carbon tax money is shifted to states with a greater presence of high-tech and service businesses.”
Matt should linger on that sentence from the Detroit News editorial for a moment. The Obama policies that appeal to a liberal blogger in D.C., or a liberal venture capitalist in Palo Alto have different implications for guys who carry metal lunch boxes to work — you know, the guys that used to be the heart of the Democratic Party.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Most Indianans are also customers of their local utility, which will have to raise their rates because of cap & trade.
Dave/Al: nearly all the analysis I’ve read claims the Obama agenda as recently laid out in his budget unquestionably makes the country’s post tax/transfer income situation more progressive. Is all this analysis wrong, and in fact the wealthy will continue to grow their share of the pie as under Bush?
March 4th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
This debate over taxation has been reduced to the right calling the left socialists and the left saying so what. Why can’t we have an honest debate on the long-term effects of this taxation? I know Romer has written at least one controversial report outlining the costs but this sort of discussion seems to elude most media (MY included).
And why won’t someone tell Matt that his readers already know what Obama’s tax plan says? If he really wants to make a point and convince the Douhats and Frums he needs to do more than state the obvious. Perhaps he could start by offering a progressive estimate as to how much raising taxes on 2% will lower GDP and compare it with how much lowering taxes on 95% will raise it.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
The Obama policies that appeal to a liberal blogger in D.C., or a liberal venture capitalist in Palo Alto have different implications for guys who carry metal lunch boxes to work…
Shorter DaveinHackensack: vote GOP, because the other guys want to reignite the productivity-enhancing, wealth-creating tech boom that was so terrible.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Obama’s strategy is based on the idea that it’s still 2007 and America’s problem is that, although we are plenty wealthy, that wealth is inequitably distributed.
Well, it’s not 2007 anymore. And we were never that rich in the first place.
For Obama’s budget to come close to working without crippling deficits, he needs either to reinflate the old housing bubble or inflate a new bubble. Alternative energy isn’t turning out to be that bubble for him, so what else does he have up his sleeve?
March 4th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
This is not true.
http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/revisiting-the-dows-1933-1936-rally/8483
1936 was one of the all time great years on Wall St. I have removed your ignorance. You’re welcome.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“Shorter DaveinHackensack: vote GOP, because the other guys want to reignite the productivity-enhancing, wealth-creating tech boom that was so terrible.”
That must explain why the stock market has been on such a tear recently: investors are anticipating how Obama’s policies are going to bring us another late 90’s-style tech boom.
“This is not true.”
Cyclical = less than five years.
Secular = longer than five years.
1933-1936 was a cyclical bull market within the secular bear market that went from 1929 to 1950. Sort of like the cyclical bull market we had from the end of 2002 to 2007 within the current secular bear market that started in 2000.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
“So says Yglesias, at least.”
So says reality, as well. The Bush family has consistently outperformed their intelligence and qualifications. It takes a really powerful family to fund the enemy during a time of war and get off clean. If there is a Royal Family in America, the Bush Family is it.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
“For Obama’s budget to come close to working without crippling deficits, he needs either to reinflate the old housing bubble or inflate a new bubble.”
Get a grip, Steve, Obama admits that deficits will be very high for the next few years. That’s actually the whole point of deficit spending. When Reagan faced economic problems that were minor compared to this problem, he proposed deficit spending. And it worked. So what are you saying? That Reagan’s deficit spending didn’t work? Or that Reagan didn’t produce deficits?
March 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Just like investors anticipated how Bush’s policies brought us to another golden age during his first year in office? Right??
Cyclical = less than five years.
Secular = longer than five years.
Cute little semantic game, but sources?
March 4th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
The tax increases Bayh is upset about will happen automatically unless a law is passed and signed by Obama extending the Bush tax cuts which expire in 2010. Bayh knows this perfectly well. He is merely showboating. He gets to look “moderate” without having to take the slightest responsibility or action to back up his thoughts.
The Republicans will force a vote in 2010 to extend the cuts. Watch for Bayh to call in sick that day.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Romer’s study apparently found that tax increases for the purpose of reducing deficits did NOT have a negative effect on growth. Expect people to continue to distort this finding, however.
No need to be disingenuous, anyone can read the report. It says a higher tax rate is “highly contractory.” Her words not mine. All this means is for Obama’s tax plans to not be contractory the revenue raised must stimulate growth at a higher rate than the tax rate curbs.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
The Republicans will force a vote in 2010 to extend the cuts. Watch for Bayh to call in sick that day.
Or, more likely, he’ll be greenlighted to vote no given the probability that Reid has enough votes.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
That must explain why the stock market has been on such a tear recently…
No. The most likely explanation for Wall Street’s woes is that investors realize eight years of Neroesque Republican mismanagement of the economy almost certainly means the current recession will take many months to bottom out. And that this in turn means corporate profits are likely to remain weak for many months, as well.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Sweden: Two brackets (almost like the flat “fair tax”!) with the cusp between them at 10% above the median wage. The bottom bracket is 0%. The top bracket is over 50%. So easy to balance the budget that way.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
the only change I would make, is to put an additional
bracket in at 1M per household. the intertubes are filled with dirges about how unfair the Obama plan is to the poor two lawyer family living in a desirable city with 50K of childcare expenses who only bring home a comfortable 350K.
This group will still be unhappy of the $6000 tax hit but at least they won’t be able to whinge that they are being taxed at the same rate as millionaires.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Evan doesn’t want to see his father’s taxes increase…
Like many Americans, Hoosiers think they are richer than they really are; although, without as much easy credit, it is getting more difficult to be richer than one really is.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Everyone should check out David Rothkopf’s posts “Obama’s War on Me (I&II)” over at the Foreign Policy site. The man is a walking barrel of jiggling inconstancy.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
DTM,
Yes that point is well understood (i.e Ricardian equivalence) my point is (1) you need to consider the net effect of changing the tax burden from rich to poor (2) any increase in long term spending, according to Romer, will be highly contractory (unless that spending offsets this effect). The reason I didn’t feel you were being honest was because you call it deficit reduction but spending is increasing and is forecast to increase.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Bayh has always been a card carrying member of the overclass. He is mildly talented only son of a truly progressive senator who though born in a small backward province grew up in the imperial capital. Returning the the province he fooled progressives [for a little bit] governed the state. But no one remembers whether, or what he did, of any long lasting good. A blandly good looking, smart schemer. He lusts after the imperial purple but probably now realizes it will never be his. He will no return to his true love. He’s a Democratic Capehart, Beveridge or Jenner. He is not a Birch Bayh. He made a lot of money in a short time in private industry and look at who his wife works for. Also he had good friends make a lot of money on gaming licenses in Lake County that no one has ever looked into. He will be in the Senate for ever and never to anything except defend the powerful against the weak; the rich against the poor; the corporate against the individual; the state against the citizen. What you see now is what he will always be: the enemy of progress.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:08 am
stevelaudig Says:
March 4th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
ding ding ding
we have a winner, close the comments
March 5th, 2009 at 12:10 am
DTM,
Romer is looking at exogenous tax increases because she cannot eliminate the spending effect from endogenous tax increases.
But, why can’t we infer the implicit costs of an endogenous tax increase from the exogenous tax increases?
She finds raising taxes exogenously by 1% of GDP reduces GDP by 3%. If you raise taxes endogenously by 1% of GDP can we not assume spending must increase GDP by 3% for the net effect to be zero?
Anyways if you don’t agree with what I say I just googled exogenous tax and came up with this. Basically Mankiw rips Nate Silver apart over the same debate we are having. Romer’s paper is still relevant although because of the ambiguity as to what effect spending will have it is not as controversial as some think.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Ummm…”Indianans?” I really like your stuff, but as a native Hoosier, I don’t particularly like being called an Indianan.
And Bayh the younger is useless. I wish he’d start taking policy advice from his father, who was a much better Senator than he’ll ever be.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Good post, Matt.
Bayh and Nelson are showing who they really work for.
Obama’s tax cuts expose the Republican lies. It always was the Top 5% teh Rs were working for, not middle class America.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:26 am
So with all due respect, this is just another version of the exact sort of overreading of Romer’s paper that I was warning about.
It’s kind of sad that this is what Mankiw and gordon gekko want to discuss, in a disingenuous manner no less. At the same time you have the High Priest of unregulated free-market Capitalism, Alan Greenspan, admitting he was wrong all along. The more I here about Mankiw the less I like him.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
By luck or grace, I am one of the top two percent – as are most of my closest friends. Yest, all of us voted for Obama, and none of us are complaining about the higher marginal rate. For those of us making $500K it amounts – after deductions, etc. – to about $8 to $9k per year. Most of us are hyper-successful wage earners of some sort (doctor, engineer, academic…) and will work just as hard to be seen as successful after letting the tax breaks expire as now. The notion of “going Galt” is plain stupid and show a remarkable lac of understanding of most people working in that top 2% bracket. The idea that idiots like Bayh represent most people in this class – who are well educated – is silly. He is talking for the top 1/2 of 1%. I can’t imagine why anybody thinks Bayh isn’t woring for the elite of the elite. Democrats need to shout him down.
Don N.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Where are your academic friends who make over $500K employed?
March 6th, 2009 at 8:08 am
What a joke – is someone serious? Getting an extra $13.00 a week for a few months and than $8.00 is NOT A TAX CUT. This is a joke!! Obama is trying to disguise underwithholding as a tax cut. Please tell me what $13.00 a week will do for me or anyone? Please remember Michele Obama said the $600.00 Bush gave was worthless. Well good God, what is this?! Also, you will NEVER be able to pay for the massive amounts of spending Obama has planned for this country on the top of the so called rich in this country. Obama will bankrupt this country in a short period of time. This is America and America is not about waiting around for a government handout. Why in God’s name are we trying to change what made America great? I am sick of what is going on in this country and if we do not stop it and start getting mad, America will be gone – America will be a social democracy and there will be NO turning back. I am not willing to send America down the river while Obama does social engineering with this country. We are Americans and we work for better lives. Enough spending Obama – try watching what is happening with our 401k’s – we have lost 1.1 trillion dollars of American wealth since his election – are we OK with that for the extra $13.00 in our paycheck? I am not!! Enough blasting those who have worked hard to achieve more! Enough blasting the job creators in this country! America, without these evil job creators you will not have a job and yes, you will be sitting around hoping Obama will take care of you. We are becoming a 3rd rate country by allowing us to be lead around by Obama. WAKE UP AMERICA!! Your country is changing into a 3rd rate country – is this the change you voted for? We do not want to lose our freedoms for a government handout. You can take care of yourself. Where was Obama yesterday when the market was again crashing and Citibank stock was selling for .97 cents? He was trying to push another social project down our throats. Where was the treasury guy yesterday when the market was crashing? He was demonizing another productive job creator instead of trying to calm the markets. Obama has NO direction!! Obama must fix the financial systems in this country first instead of pushing his social agenda.
In only one month Obama is spending more money than any other US President. He is taking advantage of a crisis which is not acceptable. His chief of staff said do not let a crisis pass you by – you can push through things you never thought possible during a crisis. ENOUGH OBAMA!!
America – WAKE UP – WE ARE LOSING OUR COUNTRY!! STAND UP AND GET MAD – DO NOT ALLOW OBAMA TO DESTROY AMERICA!! PLEASE FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!
OBAMA — ONE BIG A.. MISTAKE AMERICA!!! No kidding. Please America – WAKE UP! If you are not worried – you should be. Watch the markets – they have NO confidence in this President and history will show you, the markets have always been right.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Do not allow Obama to destroy??? what’s left of America, after it has been ransacked by bush.
Stupid never stops. perhaps he should take a look around: unemployed UP, store closing UP, payoffs to mismanaged corporations UP, bonus to the corp brains who created this mess UP. Stock market DOWN.
And Key Lay basks in the sun of Paraguay.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
For those a littl short on economics!!! In a recession (or Depression) as strong as this one, one needs the stimulus Obama proposed to put people back to work and create demand again (spending)!! To say that you could economize with an enormous cut back in goods and services initiated by the government is absurd and foolhardy. Bayh is a product of Indiana, a Republican state and his votes have always been Blue Dog. We need leadership and courage, none of which he has at this time.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:42 am
I’m a believer we should go back to Dwight Eisenhower’s top marginal tax rates where it would be inflation adjusted to 91% for those earning over 2 million. The exorbitant compensation to CEOs, celebrities, financiers athletes and others has all worked against the greater good of the USA. These people have enough money to sway government influence in their direction at the expense of good government and that is at the root of our current oncoming depression.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Up until a few minutes ago my exposure to Senator Bayh was having worked in his father’s campaign and wondering why he was named after a tree. One is still just personal history but the naming question has been clarified. The Senator has displayed a phenominal depth of understanding of basic economics and one may also say common sense, phenominally shallow! He acts like he is puzzled why people don’t just take their tax break down to their broker and buy some groceries so they can feed their family. Say what?!
Senator, the difference between ignorance and stupidity is that one is incurable. Do you know which?
March 24th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Super-Duper site!
April 1st, 2009 at 3:49 am
I sent this page to my sister to see
April 5th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Typical ignorant leftists thinking obama the racist anti-American is going to give them a tax cut. Hate to break it to you obama idiots, but he is going to screw you, just as he is going to screw everyone else.